|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 16, 2016 22:02:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 17, 2016 11:42:13 GMT -8
I'd imagine you support the efforts to lengthen their work week, as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 18, 2016 19:51:14 GMT -8
I'd imagine you support the efforts to lengthen their work week, as well. I believe in the free market. Why can't a worker work as long as he wants? Why can't a company induce workers to work extra hours? What business is it of the government to take away the basic freedom of pursuit of happiness. To support their laws you have to be against the basic freedoms that our country is founded upon. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 19, 2016 6:29:38 GMT -8
I'd imagine you support the efforts to lengthen their work week, as well. I believe in the free market. Why can't a worker work as long as he wants? Why can't a company induce workers to work extra hours? What business is it of the government to take away the basic freedom of pursuit of happiness. To support their laws you have to be against the basic freedoms that our country is founded upon. I seldom reply to these childish replies that do not address the subject. When azteccc has no logical or intelligent thing to say he just makes some "off the wall" remarks meant to irritate. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 19, 2016 9:22:23 GMT -8
I'd imagine you support the efforts to lengthen their work week, as well. I believe in the free market. Why can't a worker work as long as he wants? Why can't a company induce workers to work extra hours? What business is it of the government to take away the basic freedom of pursuit of happiness. To support their laws you have to be against the basic freedoms that our country is founded upon. Discussion of the length of the workday or work week has been going on for a long time. When I was at SDSU in the early 80's we talked about it at length in some of my compensation classes. The professor, who was a internationally recognized expert in the field, was positive that the length of the work week would go down as more and more workers sought more leisure time. It was also a proven fact that in most factory jobs the error rate went way up after six hours. Turns out he was wrong. The average work week has gone up significantly over the past 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 19, 2016 10:17:56 GMT -8
I believe in the free market. Why can't a worker work as long as he wants? Why can't a company induce workers to work extra hours? What business is it of the government to take away the basic freedom of pursuit of happiness. To support their laws you have to be against the basic freedoms that our country is founded upon. Discussion of the length of the workday or work week has been going on for a long time. When I was at SDSU in the early 80's we talked about it at length in some of my compensation classes. The professor, who was a internationally recognized expert in the field, was positive that the length of the work week would go down as more and more workers sought more leisure time. It was also a proven fact that in most factory jobs the error rate went way up after six hours. Turns out he was wrong. The average work week has gone up significantly over the past 30 years. The French issue is the government outlawing workers from working over a set number of hours no matter their preference. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 19, 2016 10:25:20 GMT -8
Sarkozy is another example that when freed of the fear that governments exert via carrots and sticks, people come out of the closet and express their true suppressed belief that the government pushed "consensus" is wrong. This is often seen in retired scientists who no longer can lose grants or even lose tenure.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Sept 24, 2016 5:53:41 GMT -8
Sarkozy is another example that when freed of the fear that governments exert via carrots and sticks, people come out of the closet and express their true suppressed belief that the government pushed "consensus" is wrong. This is often seen in retired scientists who no longer can lose grants or even lose tenure. Wow, ground breaking!! I'm sure if Jennifer Aniston comes out as a skeptic, you will post that. Sarkozy is a politician just like Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin are. They have no scientific credibility. Keep googling around and maybe you can come up with someone with just a tad more cred. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2016 8:48:14 GMT -8
Did he come out of the closet as someone with training in environmental science?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 24, 2016 16:04:59 GMT -8
Did he come out of the closet as someone with training in environmental science? No but he is likely to be in control of another country that was a big global warming proponent. Great Britain now has a leader who is a skeptic and the United States will soon. That is why it is important. It is all driven by politics. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 24, 2016 22:18:29 GMT -8
Did he come out of the closet as someone with training in environmental science? No but he is likely to be in control of another country that was a big global warming proponent. Great Britain now has a leader who is a skeptic and the United States will soon. That is why it is important. It is all driven by politics. I agree that it is important because it is all driven by politics. That much we can agree on. It's a shame, really. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 26, 2016 12:23:45 GMT -8
Did he come out of the closet as someone with training in environmental science? No but he is likely to be in control of another country that was a big global warming proponent. Great Britain now has a leader who is a skeptic and the United States will soon. That is why it is important. It is all driven by politics. Secretary Clinton isn't a climate change skeptic.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 26, 2016 14:01:33 GMT -8
No but he is likely to be in control of another country that was a big global warming proponent. Great Britain now has a leader who is a skeptic and the United States will soon. That is why it is important. It is all driven by politics. Secretary Clinton isn't a climate change skeptic. If she was, she couldn't say so...so how do you know? She is in the same boat as many scientists. They have to tow the company line or be left without much of a career. Releasing scientists to conduct real science and not to obtain politically directed results will be a refreshing change. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Sept 26, 2016 16:15:44 GMT -8
Secretary Clinton isn't a climate change skeptic. If she was, she couldn't say so...so how do you know? She is in the same boat as many scientists. They have to tow the company line or be left without much of a career. Releasing scientists to conduct real science and not to obtain politically directed results will be a refreshing change. This is a bull$#!+ post. You do know that professional observers of the natural world can just visit areas being affected and look at the migrations and patterns of animals and plants and see extreme changes occurring. How does an arm chair scientist / Googler like you come up with this stuff? Let me guess.. the "scientists" at Breitbart? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 26, 2016 16:30:23 GMT -8
If she was, she couldn't say so...so how do you know? She is in the same boat as many scientists. They have to tow the company line or be left without much of a career. Releasing scientists to conduct real science and not to obtain politically directed results will be a refreshing change. This is a bull$#!+ post. You do know that professional observers of the natural world can just visit areas being affected and look at the migrations and patterns of animals and plants and see extreme changes occurring. How does an arm chair scientist / Googler like you come up with this stuff? Let me guess.. the "scientists" at Breitbart? There has always been changes. You can not determine that: 1. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of man's influence. 2. That extra CO2 will warm the planet to the levels that the alarmists predict. 3. That the extra warming will be a net negative. 4. That we really can effect change that would mean something. 5. That the money required to do something about it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere (i.e. clean water, cheap energy for the 3rd world, mitigation). by observing the natural world. That is pie in the sky. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Sept 27, 2016 6:01:00 GMT -8
This is a bull$#!+ post. You do know that professional observers of the natural world can just visit areas being affected and look at the migrations and patterns of animals and plants and see extreme changes occurring. How does an arm chair scientist / Googler like you come up with this stuff? Let me guess.. the "scientists" at Breitbart? There has always been changes. You can not determine that: 1. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of man's influence. 2. That extra CO2 will warm the planet to the levels that the alarmists predict. 3. That the extra warming will be a net negative. 4. That we really can effect change that would mean something. 5. That the money required to do something about it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere (i.e. clean water, cheap energy for the 3rd world, mitigation). by observing the natural world. That is pie in the sky. Oh, so how do you think scientists gather data from the physical and natural world? It's because they are in the field. Not from Google. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 27, 2016 6:47:01 GMT -8
There has always been changes. You can not determine that: 1. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of man's influence. 2. That extra CO2 will warm the planet to the levels that the alarmists predict. 3. That the extra warming will be a net negative. 4. That we really can effect change that would mean something. 5. That the money required to do something about it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere (i.e. clean water, cheap energy for the 3rd world, mitigation). by observing the natural world. That is pie in the sky. Oh, so how do you think scientists gather data from the physical and natural world? It's because they are in the field. Not from Google. So, do you think that scientists and researcher would ever consider which side their bread was buttered and who was providing the butter? I have an intense interest in our environment but tend to agree with Bill on just about everything. The damage we do to our economy when weighed against any minimal effect that over the top attempts to effect change far outweighs that effort. You just must apply some common sense. We are in cycles. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Sept 27, 2016 11:19:27 GMT -8
There has always been changes. You can not determine that: 1. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere is there because of man's influence. 2. That extra CO2 will warm the planet to the levels that the alarmists predict. 3. That the extra warming will be a net negative. 4. That we really can effect change that would mean something. 5. That the money required to do something about it wouldn't be better spent elsewhere (i.e. clean water, cheap energy for the 3rd world, mitigation). by observing the natural world. That is pie in the sky. Oh, so how do you think scientists gather data from the physical and natural world? It's because they are in the field. Not from Google. Not for global climate issues. It is spread too wide across terrain and time that any observation could be used to determine anything. Observations in the field about Global Climate issues is like looking at a single photo of a football game and determining who won unless the scoreboard is in that photo you don't get much information. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 27, 2016 12:55:58 GMT -8
Secretary Clinton isn't a climate change skeptic. If she was, she couldn't say so...so how do you know? She is in the same boat as many scientists. They have to tow the company line or be left without much of a career. Releasing scientists to conduct real science and not to obtain politically directed results will be a refreshing change. Lol I just saw this. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Sept 27, 2016 14:11:49 GMT -8
This is such a tired thread. The notion that the entire science community is on the take somehow? I have worked in marine science and have been around the science community for 40 years. I have been around some household names in the field as well. I know plenty of people in the science field who have nothing to gain from their belief in anthropomorphic climate change with eventual dire results. The changes we are seeing on the ground are dramatic. So tell me Win and Bill, how does it help...let's say a guy like Stephen Hawking, to believe in man-induced global warming?
|
|
