Where do you draw the line though?

CMBS or RMBS made money for "bankers". Well some bankers anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008%E2%80%93present)

However it also drove home sales (and home building). Are the home builders responsible for people taking mortgages on houses they could not afford?

What about the realtor/broker who showed them the house?

Or the developer who developed it?

Or the appraiser who appraised the property for hundreds of thousands of dollars more in value than it is worth now?

Or the people at Freddie Mac who earnestly wanted to put lower income people in homes?

Now, you take all the money from the bankers that survived and you give it to who?

The people who bought a house, put very little money into it, and now have to give it back?

The real estate developers who lost everything? (Of which there are many)

It all sounds well and good to take from one group and give to someone else, but I think it is easy to point the finger at the bankers and not take a look in the mirror. We all did this and allowed it to happen.

That said bankers shouldn't be making big money when they are losing big money...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^residue:

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?
Here are some data:
Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043
_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)
The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)
In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.
You might, however, find this interesting:
http://onlin
e.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.


Well, you and I seem largely agreed. I commented multiple times that the warming is not in question, but rather why and more importantly what it means to us.

The challenge with accurately modelling the contribution of H2O has nothing to do with our own emissions of H2O. For all reasonable purposes we can, again as you seem to agree, ignore the meager contribution humans make to it. H2O is as you say largely short lived in the atmosphere, but it still makes up the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect, despite residing in the atmosphere for a fraction of the time of gases like CO2. Obviously that means that H2O replenishes itself into the atmosphere as rapidly as it dissipates. We know that this rate is driven by temperature. What we don't understand well is how that should play out in our models, or more importantly how it plays out in reality. Just how much confidence can we place on future projections of CO2 changes when we aren't even sure which sign to attribute the feedback effect of water vapor?

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?

Here are some data:

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.

You might, however, find this interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email

Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.

Cripes... Uninterpreted data shows a warming since early 1900s... To say the earth isn't slowly warming is ignoring the data entirely..

Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)

The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)

Go check out a graph of CO2 emissions sometime, though, and tell me there isn't a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Hell of a coincidence, especially considering how gradual natural temperature fluctuations are and how sudden this particular change is.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp//Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/1000YrRecords.jpg

>> ^westy:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Before the big bang was discovered, the prevailing view was the steady state theory that proposed an infinite and eternal Universe. Many proponents of this view pointed to it as evidence that Creationism couldn't be true. However, when it was discovered that the Universe had a beginning, even the scientists who found the CMB that led to the discovery were forced to admit that:
"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"
The Creation account in Genesis is unique in history among the ancient religions, the only such account of a creation from nothing, of the Universe having a definite beginning. Science has affirmed this and showed the bible to be accurate on this most important question.

You are left with the issue of who created god if things cnt be created from nothing or have to start at some piont.
Also why would you take the bible to be the word of god Evan if it was originally its been edited and changed by so Manny people you can no longer know what is and what is not. on-top of that its self contradictory in places and everything within it is consistent with the knowlage and "science" of the time it was written.


God is eternal, so no one created Him. Because the Universe has a beginning, it points to something eternal, an uncaused cause. That's what God is, essentially. Since nothing can come from nothing, there had to have always been something.

Also, we have the original manuscripts the original church used. Around 25,000 for the New Testament alone. We know exactly what the original bibles said. Here is a good article on why the bible is reliable and trustworthy:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=43

>> ^shinyblurry:

Before the big bang was discovered, the prevailing view was the steady state theory that proposed an infinite and eternal Universe. Many proponents of this view pointed to it as evidence that Creationism couldn't be true. However, when it was discovered that the Universe had a beginning, even the scientists who found the CMB that led to the discovery were forced to admit that:
"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"
The Creation account in Genesis is unique in history among the ancient religions, the only such account of a creation from nothing, of the Universe having a definite beginning. Science has affirmed this and showed the bible to be accurate on this most important question.


You are left with the issue of who created god if things cnt be created from nothing or have to start at some piont.



Also why would you take the bible to be the word of god Evan if it was originally its been edited and changed by so Manny people you can no longer know what is and what is not. on-top of that its self contradictory in places and everything within it is consistent with the knowlage and "science" of the time it was written.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Before the big bang was discovered, the prevailing view was the steady state theory that proposed an infinite and eternal Universe. Many proponents of this view pointed to it as evidence that Creationism couldn't be true. However, when it was discovered that the Universe had a beginning, even the scientists who found the CMB that led to the discovery were forced to admit that:
"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"
The Creation account in Genesis is unique in history among the ancient religions, the only such account of a creation from nothing, of the Universe having a definite beginning. Science has affirmed this and showed the bible to be accurate on this most important question.


Pics or it didn't happen.



Or: I would like the meddling christian god to provide a new and recent quote of himself, best if "he" published it in a scientific journal.... IF he is powerful enough to use the scientific method.

Before the big bang was discovered, the prevailing view was the steady state theory that proposed an infinite and eternal Universe. Many proponents of this view pointed to it as evidence that Creationism couldn't be true. However, when it was discovered that the Universe had a beginning, even the scientists who found the CMB that led to the discovery were forced to admit that:

"Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you
are religious, I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the universe
to match with Genesis"

The Creation account in Genesis is unique in history among the ancient religions, the only such account of a creation from nothing, of the Universe having a definite beginning. Science has affirmed this and showed the bible to be accurate on this most important question.

A little history on the origins of the theory...

Georges Le Maitre: Catholic Priest and Astronomer who proposed the idea of the "primeval atom." His idea was actually considered to be absurd by the scientific community as it indicated a moment of creation. At the time scientist preffered the Static Universe.

Edwin Hubble: Of course you know this guy. He proved that the universe was expanding, providing evidence that supported the Big Bang Theory

CMB: A form of electromagnetic radiation filling the universe that must be explained by a model of the universe. From the wikipedia entry: "Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations."

These are just some places to start researching of course...

The possibilities that Dr. Levin speaks of are just possibilties right now. They have not yet been given the status of Theory. All we know is that the Big Bang certainly happend... and it blows my mind every time I think about...