Pew survey: 52% of Americans now more concerned than excited about AI

[pnntmp]

So there's a couple of things you need to understand, unemployment is seasonal as is employment.
Next unemployment is talking about the how many of the total work force are unemployed and are looking for work. If you are retired, unable to work, or have given up looking for work, or are under employed (only employed part time, or could not find full time work are now gig-employed) you are not counted in this number. The truth is that lots of people are now retired or have given up looking gainful employment and that has shrunk the total work force. if the work force was the same size as it was this time last year unemployment would be much much higher. how much higher? They not entirely sure but maybe twice the current rate, or maybe even more like 24% depending on who you ask.

https://www.lisep.org/tru

Okay, but no matter if you use the official numbers or some alternative, the picture doesn't change.
The website you linked confirms it - what they call "True Rate of Unemployment" is the same as the official numbers with some offset. It's also near all time lows, and also flat since AI became a thing.

All this clearly shows that AI has no measurable effect on unemployment.

 

[OortCloud]

Well it is a popular speculation, how should I call it?
The claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations we're observing is neither testable, nor falsifiable. We can't call it a hypothesis or a theory because these should be testable. Speculation is a suitable term for frivolous assumptions, it is popular (far less than before, but still) .. so there you have it. Popular speculation.

What nonsense. "Frivolous Assumptions" - why do talk that way? Do you think it makes you sound clever?
God help us all.

 

[pnntmp]

What nonsense. "Frivolous Assumptions" - why do talk that way? Do you think it makes you sound clever?
God help us all.

What exactly is nonsense? Can you put to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide? Can you falsify it?
You can do neither of these things. The claim is a mere assumption. The fact much greater fluctuations happened in the past without any man-made CO2 makes it a frivolous assumption.

 

[OortCloud]

What exactly is nonsense? Can you put to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide? Can you falsify it?
You can do neither of these things. The claim is a mere assumption. The fact much greater fluctuations happened in the past without any man-made CO2 makes it a frivolous assumption.

I'm so bored of arguing with you. You'll never change and will use any old debunked nonsense argument to defend even when every day news is showing more and more evidence to the contrary. Anyway, talking to you is ruining my day, so this will be my last reply before I hit the block button. Life is too short - and getting shorter unfortunately because a weird cult has decided to worship fossil fuels, orange criminal sex pests, guns, bigotry, faux-Christianity and a horrible form of nationalist jingoism.

The last reply... straight from NASA (but what do they know right - I expect you will argue they are "leftist communist libtards" or some other pathetic string of name calling for decent people who actually really understand things?)

Earth's temperature has changed before, but the current global warming is different because it happens much faster. Past changes took thousands of years, but today's warming happens in decades. This rapid change is driven by human activities releasing greenhouse gases, not natural cycles.

Speed of Change

• • Past shifts: Natural warm and cold cycles like ice ages took thousands of years to shift.
  • Current shift: Global temperatures have risen by over 1°C in just over a century.
  • Pace: The modern rate of warming is up to 20 times faster than past natural warming periods.

Cause of Change

• • Past triggers: Natural shifts came from changes in Earth's orbit and volcanic activity.
  • Current trigger: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide at a rate faster than any known natural event in millions of years.

Impact on Life

• • Past adaptation: Slow changes gave plants, animals, and humans time to move or adapt.
  • Current threat: Fast changes leave little time to adapt, threatening food systems, natural habitats, and sea levels.

 

[pnntmp]

I'm so bored of arguing with you. You'll never change and will use any old debunked nonsense argument to defend even when every day news is showing more and more evidence to the contrary. Anyway, talking to you is ruining my day, so this will be my last reply before I hit the block button. Life is too short - and getting shorter unfortunately because a weird cult has decided to worship fossil fuels, orange criminal sex pests, guns, bigotry, faux-Christianity and a horrible form of nationalist jingoism.

The last reply... straight from NASA (but what do they know right - I expect you will argue they are "leftist communist libtards" or some other pathetic string of name calling for decent people who actually really understand things?)

Earth's temperature has changed before, but the current global warming is different because it happens much faster. Past changes took thousands of years, but today's warming happens in decades. This rapid change is driven by human activities releasing greenhouse gases, not natural cycles.

Speed of Change

• • Past shifts: Natural warm and cold cycles like ice ages took thousands of years to shift.
  • Current shift: Global temperatures have risen by over 1°C in just over a century.
  • Pace: The modern rate of warming is up to 20 times faster than past natural warming periods.

Cause of Change

• • Past triggers: Natural shifts came from changes in Earth's orbit and volcanic activity.
  • Current trigger: Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide at a rate faster than any known natural event in millions of years.

Impact on Life

• • Past adaptation: Slow changes gave plants, animals, and humans time to move or adapt.
  • Current threat: Fast changes leave little time to adapt, threatening food systems, natural habitats, and sea levels.

You could have simply said "I admit I have no arguments".

I completely agree temperature fluctuations exist.
The claim "The modern rate of warming is up to 20 times faster than past natural warming periods" is completely baseless, because we do not have data from accurate direct temperature measurements, only speculations what past temperatures may have been on average over the millennia .. but I digress.
No matter what you speculate about the past, it's impossible to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide.

 

[lonetac]

You could have simply said "I admit I have no arguments".

I completely agree temperature fluctuations exist.
The claim "The modern rate of warming is up to 20 times faster than past natural warming periods" is completely baseless, because we do not have data from accurate direct temperature measurements, only speculations what past temperatures may have been on average over the millennia .. but I digress.
No matter what you speculate about the past, it's impossible to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide.

He did present an argument with citable quotations. You just dismissed it and said "nuh uh" without any counter argument using a citable source other than yourself.

Or an international panel?
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."1"

Are you saying NASA isnt a legitimate argument in his favor?
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

Ive seen him present a fact based argument that supports his claim. I havent seen the same from you in a counter argument.

 

[pnntmp]

He did present an argument with citable quotations. You just dismissed it and said "nuh uh" without any counter argument using a citable source other than yourself.

Or an international panel?
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."1"

Are you saying NASA isnt a legitimate argument in his favor?
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

Ive seen him present a fact based argument that supports his claim. I havent seen the same from you in a counter argument.

That's an argument from authority. I know what IPCC claims.
Simply tell me how to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide.

 

[lonetac]

That's an argument from authority. I know what IPCC claims.
Simply tell me how to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide.

Join NASA and do the research. They link their sources and reasoning. A hole lot of resources are cited on the page. All paid propoganda and unsubstantiated?

Or you could build your own scientific satellite to do your own study. You are welcome to, let us know how it goes.
"Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.
Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century.2 Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response."

We know nuclear bombs go boom, do you need to test that yourself in order to believe it?

This is the 2nd time in two days that two of you have completely denied fact based, peer reviewed studies showing a conclusion and the only thing you have is "nuh uh".

You need to do better. Provide a counter argument that includes cited peer reviewed studies or you are just exhibiting cognitive dissonance and refusing to believe facts.

I want to believe you are here in good faith and you actually have something to discuss but it really just seems like you want to deny facts and claim to be right without putting in any effort.

 

[pnntmp]

Join NASA and do the research. They link their sources and reasoning. A hole lot of resources are cited on the page. All paid propoganda and unsubstantiated?

Or you could build your own scientific satellite to do your own study. You are welcome to, let us know how it goes.
"Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.
Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century.2 Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response."

We know nuclear bombs go boom, do you need to test that yourself in order to believe it?

This is the 2nd time in two days that two of you have completely denied fact based, peer reviewed studies showing a conclusion and the only thing you have is "nuh uh".

You need to do better. Provide a counter argument that includes cited peer reviewed studies or you are just exhibiting cognitive dissonance and refusing to believe facts.

I want to believe you are here in good faith and you actually have something to discuss but it really just seems like you want to deny facts and claim to be right without putting in any effort.

I know NASA has a website, and I looked there of course.
There's plenty of information about all sorts of things, but not an answer to the very simple question - How to test the claim that man-made CO2 is the reason for the temperature fluctuations worldwide?
If a claim can't be tested, it remains in the realms of speculation.

I know that adding more CO2 results in heat trapping and temperature increase in a lab jar (with diminishing returns), but don't see how that's relevant. Planet Earth is not a tiny isolated volume, earth's climate depends on thousands of variables... which are mutually interdependent in wildly nonlinear ways. It's absolutely impossible to single out the effect of one variable change on another.