Yeah, if only there was a website where all this stuff was maintained. maybe by some government agency.
Oh, that's weird. oddly enough the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you know, the people the numbers come from...says you're wrong.
The Overall Labor Participation Rate age range is 16 and over. with no upper cap. hence, why retirees affect the rate.
IE, the calculation for is LPR is Working Population 16+ / Total Population 16+
They -DO- have a data series that limits it to 16-62 but then you don't get an accurate sense of how many retirees are leaving the labor pool. But they have several data series, split into several brackets based on age, gender, race and ethnicity, so they can present a wide range of granularity. They actually track age up to "75 and older". So if your 90 year old mum was in the workforce last year, and retired this year, she was in the labor participation rate pool both times, and contributed to its decline.
Seriously, they may not be a large part of the workforce, but what sense does it make to artificially exclude people over 62 (especially as people are working longer and retiring later)? That's not how you get accurate statistics for something called Labor Participation Rate. The only reason why under 16 is excluded is because they are, largely, legally excluded from working.
jesus, why do you act like it's hard to find this stuff out, and insist on making it up as you go?
Why would it be hilarious? Jackson in no way represented an ideological leftist. But Harriet Tubman certainly was, as an early pioneer for both civil rights and women's equality.
Or did you miss that whole part where between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement majorities the ideologies of the parties shifted and essentially traded places? (really the purifying of the parties as the opposing wings left for the opposite party) The parties used to be amalgamations of many conflicting viewpoints based more on region and history, than on party label.
Why do people always ignore the great sorting that occurred as the factions began leaving for like minded fellow, and the parties became more cohesive monolithic platforms that we have today, in order to make vacuous points based on outdated labels?
no, the pause is a manufactured construct that plays off of two things:
-1998 was a record shattering year. a peak, tremendously higher than anything before, and anything since (until quite recently).
-then the following years, 1999 - 2010, showed a slower rate of warming. still warming but not as quickly as the 90's did, and each year not as warm as 1998 either. (As it happens, we also now know why that period warmed at a slower rate than expected: the heat went into the oceans.)
So then, when plotted as a graph, the period from 1998 (record higher year) to 2010 gives the false appearance of a "pause". This is called cherry picking.
The full graph, including years prior to 1998, clearly show the years of 1999-2010 were still warmer than the nearly every previous, other than 1998. IE, the trend is clearly warming and there is no pause.
the influence of el Niño and la Nina is actually fairly small on the global scale. noticeable, but their largest effects are still localized, and decrease the further you go around the world. and of course, the effects don't really start until midway or more through the year.
hence, the overall effect on global avg temps is relatively minor. in fact, even without the el nino, it still would have been a record year.
Even the meme "hottest on record" is a misnomer as the planet has been much hotter and much colder during many periods, but there weren't humans around to build sensors so those periods are technically "not on record"
if it accurately describes exactly what it is, how exactly is it a 'misnomer' ?? Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
BTW, yes the earth certainly has been warmer. But not while people were present as a species.
Hell, I hear that a few billion years ago the surface was even still molten. guess that really puts the nail in the coffin of global warming...right?
It all depends on which scientist you listen to. If you accept only one theory, bad man, you have forgotten all the other influences that are mightier then man. Such as, eliminated sun from the equation.
Did that.
That big yellow thing in your sky, and, having read theories on controlling the input from the sun, such as parasols,
Parasols? What do fancy umbrellas have to do with it?
or the one of directing energy to receivers on earth for electricity
that's still science fiction. those don't exist yet
disregarding the atmospheric warming locally,
urban heat island effect? yeah they already accounted for that too.
the same with the formulations of climate science, they call our star making "x" amount of energy, daily. But it is a variable star, gone quiet, what is the effect of going quiet, why?
if the sun went quiet, we'd all freeze to death veryquickly. luckily its still shining
Plus our attempting to change the magnetic field of earth.
wtf are you smoking?
Is that safe? Where is the fallback if they are wrong? Some cave in the mountains?
why must there be a perfect ideal number? sometimes in science you can trends or effects that are obviously harmful if allowed to continue without knowing what the ideal would be.
besides, the ideal "baseline" here is so obvious I can assume you are brain damaged not come up with it yourself (and your conspiracy belief only furthers that assumption): a climate that changes according to its natural patterns, whatever they may be, without human input. the ideal is such that the effect of humanity is neutral. now given our large agricultural processes and other activities, that ideal may not be attainable, which then brings us to what is reasonable, and that is a level where our impact is minimal, manageable, and stable.
a problem is when people are forced to migrate frm low lying areas....especially since 2/3 of the total human population lives in such areas.
seriously, your entire input here is so fallacious, so disingenuous, that you don't even deserve serious response.
son you are absolutely nutters. this is why "im just asking" trolls deserve no real response. they use suggestive or leading questions (informal manipulative fallacies) to open, and then reply with their garbage.
That's because the pause is a manufactured artifact created by cherry picking your starting point at 1998, a peak year, and ignoring the previous several years of data.
all the author of that article did is prove that he is actually fairly ignorant of both actual uncertainty considerations, and the actual accuracy of the instruments being used.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person. You can only really make these claims when you factor a lot of weather stations together and average them to get these numbers
Well no f'ing s*** Sherlock. AgainMay I again point your attention to the word global. Global warming. Global Average Temperatures.
the idea its not visible when you look at only one station is meaningless.
but some things people do notice: shorter, milder winters; the warm season beginning earlier; summer lasting longer; hurricane season beginning earlier, lake effect snow storms being larger (warmer air holds more water, increasing snow dump).
btw, yes, some of the station records are exactly that: someone recording a temperature every hour of every day.
you have no true interest in discussing anything, civilly or otherwise. your purpose here is to spread misinformation and doubt.
-not identical...unless you're willfully blind (the true answer I suspect) -there are tens (hundreds) of thousands of stations. you aren't going to "audit" them all yourself...but you also don't have to, the work has already been done and been collected into these handy dandy data sets, so the one or two you look at both prove nothing and are a waste of your time -no one wants dictatorial control over everything -no, its not 2 trillion a year -yes, you are missing something: facts and logic -China and India -are- on board and making changes -if every summer is warmer than the last....doesn't that suggest a trend to you? -what we've had enough of is your constant stream of BS
so you not only cherry pick data, but you also cherry pick quotes, ie, quote mine, in order to inaccurately portray someone's words. hardly surprising.
He isn't talking about private citizens, random ignorant cranks ont he internet (such as yourself).
He's calling Exxon one...because Exxon admitted to knowing about global warming years ago, yet continued to fund and sow doubt for all that time.
It's not totalitarianism, it's simple justice: they knew its bad, admitted as much in private, yet continued to act otherwise in public and even try to convince the public that the science was wrong.
Tobacco did the same thing. The lead industry. Several others. This isn't a new phenomenon, and neither is the idea that it's criminal negligence.
the damn supreme court case affirming that prisons cannot bar inmates from religious beards was only 3 months ago!
Maybe, that's because beards do not, in fact, require any special accommodations. Or, maybe, SCOTUS simply made a mistake this time.
you would think that, except......
-the prison barred beards out of safety concerns for the guards (razor blades). this being a rather old and generally well supported and reasonable point of view, that until now hadn't really been challenged. so they had banned beards of all lengths. -a Muslim petitioner sought permission to grow a beard IAW his religion -the prison denied that permission -he filed lawsuit citing 1A protections. --in his favor, he also stated in his legal filing that he saw the prison systems point of view, and was willing to compromise and limit the length of his beard, to say a half inch -the case made its way to the Supreme Court, who called it an obvious 1A case, decided in his favor, noting his willingness to compromise -that prison system now allows short beards for religious observance as a compromise (aka religious accommodation!)
you stated that it is against the 1A for government to engage in accommodations.
you were wrong. the link proves it. the cases have already been to the SCOTUS.
no, they don't write the laws. but as you said, they enforce it. ergo, the link accurately reflects are what the laws are, the laws that you say don't exist in the first place.
and the statement
whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military [washingtonpost.com], wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers
obviously includes employment as a subject area for applying accommodations. as for prisons, we already covered how you got that wrong too (remember? the case was in January? prison beards?)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, if only there was a website where all this stuff was maintained.
maybe by some government agency.
Oh, that's weird.
oddly enough the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you know, the people the numbers come from...says you're wrong.
The Overall Labor Participation Rate age range is 16 and over.
with no upper cap.
hence, why retirees affect the rate.
IE, the calculation for is LPR is Working Population 16+ / Total Population 16+
They -DO- have a data series that limits it to 16-62 but then you don't get an accurate sense of how many retirees are leaving the labor pool. But they have several data series, split into several brackets based on age, gender, race and ethnicity, so they can present a wide range of granularity. They actually track age up to "75 and older". So if your 90 year old mum was in the workforce last year, and retired this year, she was in the labor participation rate pool both times, and contributed to its decline.
Seriously, they may not be a large part of the workforce, but what sense does it make to artificially exclude people over 62 (especially as people are working longer and retiring later)? That's not how you get accurate statistics for something called Labor Participation Rate . The only reason why under 16 is excluded is because they are, largely, legally excluded from working.
jesus, why do you act like it's hard to find this stuff out, and insist on making it up as you go?
still does jackass.
Why would it be hilarious?
Jackson in no way represented an ideological leftist.
But Harriet Tubman certainly was, as an early pioneer for both civil rights and women's equality.
Or did you miss that whole part where between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement majorities the ideologies of the parties shifted and essentially traded places? (really the purifying of the parties as the opposing wings left for the opposite party) The parties used to be amalgamations of many conflicting viewpoints based more on region and history, than on party label.
Why do people always ignore the great sorting that occurred as the factions began leaving for like minded fellow, and the parties became more cohesive monolithic platforms that we have today, in order to make vacuous points based on outdated labels?
Now to find a planet with giant worms.
As someone else pointed out: it's not about him.
It's about us, and what we become when we become a vengeful society lacking in forgiveness, incapable of hoping for change in a person.
who's gets to define what a monster is?
who gets to draw the line, and where?
no, the pause is a manufactured construct that plays off of two things:
-1998 was a record shattering year. a peak, tremendously higher than anything before, and anything since (until quite recently).
-then the following years, 1999 - 2010, showed a slower rate of warming. still warming but not as quickly as the 90's did, and each year not as warm as 1998 either. (As it happens, we also now know why that period warmed at a slower rate than expected: the heat went into the oceans.)
So then, when plotted as a graph, the period from 1998 (record higher year) to 2010 gives the false appearance of a "pause".
This is called cherry picking.
The full graph, including years prior to 1998, clearly show the years of 1999-2010 were still warmer than the nearly every previous, other than 1998.
IE, the trend is clearly warming and there is no pause .
http://www.motherjones.com/fil...
not flamebait.
just cold hard fact.
They're called smart people, who know how to read a graph.
http://www.motherjones.com/fil...
the influence of el Niño and la Nina is actually fairly small on the global scale.
noticeable, but their largest effects are still localized, and decrease the further you go around the world.
and of course, the effects don't really start until midway or more through the year.
hence, the overall effect on global avg temps is relatively minor.
in fact, even without the el nino, it still would have been a record year.
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Even the meme "hottest on record" is a misnomer as the planet has been much hotter and much colder during many periods, but there weren't humans around to build sensors so those periods are technically "not on record"
if it accurately describes exactly what it is, how exactly is it a 'misnomer' ??
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
BTW, yes the earth certainly has been warmer.
But not while people were present as a species.
Hell, I hear that a few billion years ago the surface was even still molten.
guess that really puts the nail in the coffin of global warming...right?
It all depends on which scientist you listen to. If you accept only one theory, bad man, you have forgotten all the other influences that are mightier then man. Such as, eliminated sun from the equation.
Did that.
That big yellow thing in your sky, and, having read theories on controlling the input from the sun, such as parasols,
Parasols?
What do fancy umbrellas have to do with it?
or the one of directing energy to receivers on earth for electricity
that's still science fiction.
those don't exist yet
disregarding the atmospheric warming locally,
urban heat island effect?
yeah they already accounted for that too.
the same with the formulations of climate science, they call our star making "x" amount of energy, daily. But it is a variable star, gone quiet, what is the effect of going quiet, why?
if the sun went quiet, we'd all freeze to death veryquickly.
luckily its still shining
Plus our attempting to change the magnetic field of earth.
wtf are you smoking?
Is that safe? Where is the fallback if they are wrong? Some cave in the mountains?
no, really, wtf are you smoking?
why must there be a perfect ideal number?
sometimes in science you can trends or effects that are obviously harmful if allowed to continue without knowing what the ideal would be.
besides, the ideal "baseline" here is so obvious I can assume you are brain damaged not come up with it yourself (and your conspiracy belief only furthers that assumption): a climate that changes according to its natural patterns, whatever they may be, without human input. the ideal is such that the effect of humanity is neutral. now given our large agricultural processes and other activities, that ideal may not be attainable, which then brings us to what is reasonable, and that is a level where our impact is minimal, manageable, and stable.
a problem is when people are forced to migrate frm low lying areas....especially since 2/3 of the total human population lives in such areas.
seriously, your entire input here is so fallacious, so disingenuous, that you don't even deserve serious response.
son you are absolutely nutters.
this is why "im just asking" trolls deserve no real response.
they use suggestive or leading questions (informal manipulative fallacies) to open, and then reply with their garbage.
That's because the pause is a manufactured artifact created by cherry picking your starting point at 1998, a peak year, and ignoring the previous several years of data.
IE, there is no pause .
http://www.motherjones.com/fil...
all the author of that article did is prove that he is actually fairly ignorant of both actual uncertainty considerations, and the actual accuracy of the instruments being used.
aka, the "im just asking" line of attack.
No, I'm showing that it isn't noticeable as a person. You can only really make these claims when you factor a lot of weather stations together and average them to get these numbers
Well no f'ing s*** Sherlock.
AgainMay I again point your attention to the word global .
Global warming.
Global Average Temperatures.
the idea its not visible when you look at only one station is meaningless.
but some things people do notice: shorter, milder winters; the warm season beginning earlier; summer lasting longer; hurricane season beginning earlier, lake effect snow storms being larger (warmer air holds more water, increasing snow dump).
btw, yes, some of the station records are exactly that: someone recording a temperature every hour of every day.
you have no true interest in discussing anything, civilly or otherwise.
your purpose here is to spread misinformation and doubt.
-not identical...unless you're willfully blind (the true answer I suspect)
-there are tens (hundreds) of thousands of stations. you aren't going to "audit" them all yourself...but you also don't have to, the work has already been done and been collected into these handy dandy data sets, so the one or two you look at both prove nothing and are a waste of your time
-no one wants dictatorial control over everything
-no, its not 2 trillion a year
-yes, you are missing something: facts and logic
-China and India -are- on board and making changes
-if every summer is warmer than the last....doesn't that suggest a trend to you?
-what we've had enough of is your constant stream of BS
well I wouldn't go so far as to say none.
there have always been a few mavericks who would push the envelope just because its there.
but its definitely true that they do not and never have represented the majority view when it comes to private investment in research.
Nah, just stupid
No, it makes all the difference in the world.
They knew its bad.
The covered it up.
They tried to convince the public otherwise.
All to protect profits.
It's an open and shut, textbook case, and has absolutely nothing to do with the 1A or with prosecuting an opinion.
so you not only cherry pick data, but you also cherry pick quotes, ie, quote mine, in order to inaccurately portray someone's words. hardly surprising.
He isn't talking about private citizens, random ignorant cranks ont he internet (such as yourself).
He's calling Exxon one...because Exxon admitted to knowing about global warming years ago, yet continued to fund and sow doubt for all that time.
It's not totalitarianism, it's simple justice: they knew its bad, admitted as much in private, yet continued to act otherwise in public and even try to convince the public that the science was wrong.
Tobacco did the same thing. The lead industry. Several others.
This isn't a new phenomenon, and neither is the idea that it's criminal negligence.
Maybe, that's because beards do not, in fact, require any special accommodations. Or, maybe, SCOTUS simply made a mistake this time.
you would think that, except......
-the prison barred beards out of safety concerns for the guards (razor blades). this being a rather old and generally well supported and reasonable point of view, that until now hadn't really been challenged. so they had banned beards of all lengths.
-a Muslim petitioner sought permission to grow a beard IAW his religion
-the prison denied that permission
-he filed lawsuit citing 1A protections.
--in his favor, he also stated in his legal filing that he saw the prison systems point of view, and was willing to compromise and limit the length of his beard, to say a half inch
-the case made its way to the Supreme Court, who called it an obvious 1A case, decided in his favor, noting his willingness to compromise
-that prison system now allows short beards for religious observance as a compromise (aka religious accommodation! )
you stated that it is against the 1A for government to engage in accommodations.
you were wrong.
the link proves it. the cases have already been to the SCOTUS.
no, they don't write the laws. but as you said, they enforce it.
ergo, the link accurately reflects are what the laws are, the laws that you say don't exist in the first place.
and the statement
whole idea of government — whether in prison or the military [washingtonpost.com], wherever — recognizing a religion and making special accommodations for followers
obviously includes employment as a subject area for applying accommodations. as for prisons, we already covered how you got that wrong too (remember? the case was in January? prison beards?)
ergo, you were wrong, again.