Fran kimmel laundry day essay

A man has suggested chatting up women in a crowded bar to annoy them into giving up their seats in a Reddit discussion about unethical life hacks picture posed by models. User Vero had devised a way of tricking the seller into delivering an item straight to you after making a purchase on Craigslist. Baseball enthusiast BobLoblaw75 always ensures he gets the best seats by buying the cheapest possible tickets and checking out the premium seats that are still on sale an hour before leaving for the game. He then makes a note of the section, row and seat number and once he gets to the ground, he asks an usher where a particular section is before they look at his ticket.

A lot people have digital tickets on the phone so its not unusual. Diggeriodo added another version of this trick 'for the less charismatic',. Torvaun had a range of unethical life hacks that he was eager to share, including having a spare mobile phone number to put down on job applications so you can 'use yourself as a reference'. He added: 'If you want to sound sick when calling in to your work, lie on your back while hanging your head over the edge of the bed. You will sound congested.

He also suggested chatting up 'the hottest woman' in a crowded bar when you can't get a seat. Another of his tricks is to leave your car in a paid car park for a week and then pretend you've lost your ticket. The ticket machine usually has a 'lost ticket' option, which charges you the maximum daily fee - meaning you get the rest of the week free.

Anyone looking to take a sneaky extended break from their desk may want to follow Dragonboy's advice to invest in a decoy wallet. Omny87 suggested a rather elaborate way to get a meal from a nice restaurant for free by pretending to propose to your girlfriend or wife. A baseball enthusiast alsways buys the cheapest possible tickets and blags his way into the best seats, which he's checked have not been sold, once he gets to the game stock image. Professor Weber must yearn for Zembla, where due regard for intellectual consistency is instilled in every student.

Outstanding essay. Science is about proving theory with empirical evidence, and more importantly seeking to falsify theory with empirical evidence to determine the limitations and need for new theory. AGW fails on both counts, because the climate models have by and large not predicted temperatures over the last years, nor have the predictions of melted glaciers, floods, increased hurricanes come true, and there is no apparent way to falsify the theory since floods, droughts, cold, heat, rain, and snow are all signs of global warming. A theory that is impossible to falsify is not scientific, and AGW is not science, it is purely a political movement designed redistribute wealth from wealthy to poor, and from Right to Left.

These schemes are making energy more expensive for the poor and paying off landowners so that net-negative wind turbines can litter the countryside. But also, corporations are getting green energy subsidies — so that redistributes from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. The expectation is that the cost of such energy sources will continue to fall, to be competitive without the polluting effects and never-ending wars with nasty regimes that control oil Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iraq….

David — that expectation has proven spectacularly wrong. Is it coal, gas, or nuclear? Can wind and solar force frequency control onto an electrical grid? If not, what must be used? How quickly can a fossil fuel power plant be brought up to speed to backup solar or wind? You also conveniently forget that the U. Heck, a war that shuts down some of those production areas would benefit the U. Alas, ignorance abounds. The U. However, the U. Check the actual statistics. Some science is harder to be as strict on, relying on observations about data rather than dual blind experiments.

The warming planet due to CO2 and related gases primarily released by human activity is pretty convincing, even if not proven by scientific experiments that cannot be done on a planet with us living on it. Well said Jim I nderstand that there is a basis for the conclusion that in fact the increase in CO2 is driven by a previous increase in temperatures. It is possible to show that one thing affects another without it being a perfect correlation; so it appears to be with CO2.

What people are arguing is that it is one significant factor over which humans have direct control, and therefore can take or not take action on. You are equivocating. Otherwise, why all the necessity of eliminating our CO2 output? Perhaps you are a denier? If CO2 is the bugaboo, then it must be causing the warming. It is not surprising that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. And that is the point, is the current warming due to natural variability or due to CAGW?

If not, are we just kind of in a cycle? Again, these just average a bunch of incorrect projections and hope to come up with a correct answer. More and more scientists are starting to wonder if we are entering a cooling period. Cooling has much more dire consequences to humankind than warming. If the possibility that CO2 could mitigate this cooling, we should be looking to increase it.

For the part where there IS a correlation, temperature leads CO2. The issue is that there is no evidence that it IS a significant influence on temperature. In the modern period the rates of T rise are the same during the early part of the century as the latter, and then we have the pause, where the rate flattens, despite large increases in CO2!

People are completely misled on this issue! CO2 has been as high as ppm during an ice age. You argue that for All that one can conclude is that a confluence of other factors overrode CO2 factor at a given moment in time. But those ice age conditions are not relevant for the conditions we live in now and thus a straw man argument. Given the factors we know affect global climate, Scientists build a model that includes all these various factors to explain temperature volcanic activity, solar radiation, water vapor, etc … and scientists cannot explain our current warming without including human activity and human CO2 production.

It is as simple as that. At a certain point you either have to be forthright and say you are ignoring climate models altogether, or come up with peer reviewed research that explains our warming conditions without human activity as a factor…. I agree. We are told constantly about the disaster that is imminent, but never on the possible positive effects of warming, or the contradictory evidence — I did not know about the growth of the Arctic ice cap until I read it here.

I also struggle with the hypocrisy of many of the most fervent advocates of extreme measures to combat global warming: flying around the world preaching about climate change, wearing clothes and furnishing their homes with goods produced in several different countries through the globalised economy ie, dependent on transport , and eating meat. These measures seem apply to others, but not themselves. When there are so many real problems in the world including environment problems like waste disposal , the zealotry around global warming seems like a sort of global hysteria.

And in support of one particular political solution: massive government regulations to limit or ban fossil fuels. But these two positions involve a complex series of separate scientific claims—that global temperatures are rising, that humans are primarily responsible, that the results are going to be catastrophic for human life, that rising temperatures can be halted—combined with a series of economic and political propositions.

For example: that action to ban fossil fuels would be more efficacious than using the wealth made possibly by fossil fuels to help humans adapt to future climatic changes. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal—and one political party ticket. The trick is to make it look as though disagreement on any of these specific questions is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and the scientific worldview itself. Thank you very much for it. It is nice that an english professor actually understands what the greenhouse effect is and that greenhouses do not principally work because of it.

The last paragraph is however fundmanetally dishonest. It is not and cannot be a theory being at best a prediction from climate modelling which involves many assumptions of human behaviour and a value judgement about the outcome. Inherent within the modelling process is the possibility that new unmodelled factors may become significant or that errors in the model which had not been apparent in the historic data become significant in the future.

That does not mean the result of modelling should be disregarded, they are our best predicition, but no one should think that they will be perfect predictors. The only thing that the climate science community falsifies are the temperature records to juice up the warming in modern times, and make it colder in more distant times. Appeals to authority, the very reason that this scam has rolled on for so long. People have lost the ability to reason. Reading some of these comments is like being an accomplished chess player listening to overly confident novices teaching other people the rules, and mistaking the game for drafts.

Mind you, mine are all mathematicians, statisticians, engineers and the odd sensible social scientist. I give our PhD students an introductory lecture on experimental design, and I mention global warming as an example of observational data. However, any sensible approach should give prediction intervals as well as point predictions, and the level of uncertainty involved is likely to be high under any reasonable assessment of this. Hence we would get wide prediction intervals with a good chance of including the future real value even if the predicted mean is not great.

The best you can probably do is compare the predictions of no-anthropogenic models to with-anthropogenic models and see which do better. Which of course leaves you heavily dependent on model quality. How to falsify global warming? The premise is that result in warming. The experiment is to radically decrease the concentration of those gases being released across the world, wait years, and see if the concentration of those gases has dropped and global temps have decreased. Easy peasy. In order to really get at the issue, the experiment has to be global in nature.

As an aside, this is exactly what scientist are proposing we do. The evidence of warming is all around us. The link to human activity is well established. There is no cabal of scientists working to scam the world. Doug — You are correct that a true AGW experiment would be impossible, but the next best alternative is to simply demonstrate enough knowledge of the factors the influence climate that their climate models are able to make relatively accurate predictions over time.

Unfortunately, the models have not been accurate, and new data constantly demonstrates their very incomplete knowledge of this very complicated issue. For example, none of the climate models have predicted the growing glaciers over the last years in Greenland, but all have assumed that melting West Antarctica ice was caused by climate change, when instead it is caused by active volcanoes below the ice.

Throw out the weather models because they sometimes get predictions about the future wrong. Models are all worthless because they are not accurate all the time, which is why economics and medicine all fail because they are not always accurate. David — you know so little about climate — you should get out more.

K — peer reviewed AGW research is problematic for several reasons. First, the Climategate scandal clearly demonstrated the pro-AGW bias of the peer review process in climate journals, which means non-supporting research will less often be published. Second, any single academic article is almost always focusing on only a small research problem, which gives little insight into the bigger picture.


  1. Why Are We Now Talking about “Unfinished Business”?.
  2. Fran Kimmel Laundry Day Essay.
  3. Fran kimmel laundry day essay;
  4. View Everyone Who's Coming.

Thus the typical academic article references many dozens of other articles, which is something not allowed by the the format of Quillette because there seems to be an upper limit of about 2 links per post. All the links I provide are linked to academic articles and official government temperature records, which allow the reader to dive into the source material more deeply if they distrust analysis of the author or website.

In that respect, my links are much more diverse and documented than your continual reliance on the skepticalscience link that appears to be skeptical in name only. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory as people often think but a vice. AGW is based upon computer modeling. If an economic model predicted continual growth but the reality showed 17 years of no growth, doubt in the model would be justified.

There exists a computer model which demonstrates that the radical left agenda is the fix for Armageddon. The link to human activity is NOT established. In fact, predictions have been spectacularly wrong! It is easy for anybody to check this themselves. That is a FACT. Droughts and floods have NOT increased. There WAS a cabal of scientists working to scam the world.

That is beyond dispute. The biggest difficulty people have is in accepting just how bad the science around this is, and just how much corruption is involved. Not ALL climate scientists are corrupt. Most go into university with the unquestioning belief that the theory is correct, and then spend their lives working under this paradigm; modelling future potential impacts based on a faulty assumption for which there is little evidence.

Are you just that brilliant? I doubt it. While I sympathize with the spirit of the article and agree that ignorance in scientific matters puts to shame large sways of academia, I am saddened by the faint smell of denialism that permeates the last part of it. How come scientists are good enough when they taught you about the working of a greenhouse and they are not good anymore when they study and produce results, and try to falsify theories in the context of climate change?

What sort of smart ass question is the closing one supposed to be? I am a regular reader, but on this topic Quillette is less than brilliant. The falsification lies in the failure of key predictions of AGW to actually occur. For example, AGW theory unambiguously predicts an area of elevated temperature in the stratosphere above the equator. Nor have other key predictions—melted sea ice, the end of snow, rapidly rising seas—come to pass. The problem with AGW is that it takes a stupendously complex thing—the climate—and renders it stupidly simple.

Full Stop. If you are intelligent, have some understanding of the science, and are not particularly vulnerable to peer pressure, you naturally resist such gross oversimplification. But if your science education ended in grade school, you tend gullible, and are keen on being part of the crowd, then AGW is your baby, baby!

The warm spell we have lately experienced, and for which we daily ought to thank our lucky stars, is primarily the global climate rebounding to the Holocene normal from the anomalous cold of the Little Ice Age, which peaked about years ago. This will be realized, too late, when inevitably the climate trends cold again in a few years or decades. At which point AGW will be quietly forgotten and replaced by the next manufactured crisis. A deeply unhealthy self-hatred motivates the most ardent proponents of AGW. Perhaps we should all chip in and get them some therapy.

AGW is just the ancient disease of religious millennialism dressed in a shiny sciency suit. It speaks to exactly the same sort of population wide psychological and political receptors through exactly the same sort of priestly profiteers. The climate scare profiteers are trying to accurately predict a change in heat flow at top-of-atmosphere of about 0.

And even at their best they model grid cells of no better than km on a side. Like claiming a stick-figure drawing captures the complete visual description of a person. The lower atmosphere is warming at about 1. There is just no apocalypse in the offing. Fascinating article. Can you imagine how smart university students would be if they were confronted non-stop with intellectual rigor like the author mentioned? Heck, global warming might actually be a compelling argument if people knew what they were talking about.

My own experience with a scientist by training and by occupation who was a true global warming fanatic made me convinced that the movement was suspect. He was going on and on, and I sort of carelessly tossed out the fact that the earth had been warming up since the last ice age. He looked at me and, dead serious, said that the campfires of the early humans caused a carbon spike that melted the glaciers and ended the ice age.

I kid you not. Here I was, ready to listen, and he unloads that nonsense on me. Agree, this was a great post. No idea why commenters are hell bent on slamming it. They must be Excellent-Post Deniers. The Obama-Sandy Hook bits are horrifying. There are quite a number of good books available on Amazon and elsewhere which explain the known history, observations, and controversy over models in language the non-specialist or layman can easily understand.

If only more people availed themselves of them, this hysteria over mostly nothing certainly nothing proven could be addressed rationally by both sides. Plus, the largest driver is water vapor, which dwarfs trace gases that makes up only a few parts per million of the whole.

`` Laundry Day `` By Fran Kimmel

Yet every day, all over the world, gas and oil are extracted, shipped, and consumed without incident for decades at a time. Show me the falsification. LR, Methane has a pretty short half-life in out atmosphere. It does not dissipate into space. It is oxidized ultimately into water and CO2. CO2 has a molecular weight of CO2 in the atmosphere has a half-life of hundreds of years.

Note that lower estimates for the half-life of atmospheric CO2 exist. CO2 actually has a very short half-life in the atmosphere, in single digits of years, because it is very much in demand by plants and marine carbonate secreters, and because there are many carbon sinks in nature.

In actuality there has been a severe CO2 drought for the last few hundred thousand years. But it does hint at the desperate determination of climate doomsters to demonize this essential trace gas, upon which all life on the planet depends, directly or indirectly. Let me offer the following model. Say all human-related methane emissions went to zero tomorrow including cows presumably.

However, long would it take for atmospheric methane to fall back to preindustrial levels? A few decades at most. However, if all human-related CO2 emissions went to zero, atmospheric CO2 would still be at elevated levels hundreds of years from now. A half life is a half life is a half life. Historically speaking we are in a severe CO2 drought, which has limited plant growth. The recent mild increase in CO2 levels has partially offset this drought, with the result that there has been an explosion of new plant growth across the planet. This stuff is in heavy demand.

The Earth, if it could speak, would likely thank us profusely for our modest contribution of this indispensable trace gas, in very short supply for the last few hundred thousand years. Scientists do NOT make more money saying that the global climate is warming, and CO2 emitted by human activity is the main cause. The scientists are just stating the what the data supports. So Global Climate Change is happening. Now what do we do? What I would like to see, and even the USA Republicans seem to be slowly leaning this way, is a calm discussion about how bad this will be, what we should do about it, how fast we need to act, and what good policies would be carbon tax vs regulations vs??

It would be great if the hyperbole on both sides would calm down a bit, and we get on with fixing things like we did with acid rain and the ozone hole. It makes you more appealing to a hiring committee and more attractive for funding. People spent years becoming climate scientists in order to get rich. I suppose you also think that oil company executives have altruistic motivations! The AGW alarmists are much better funded than the skeptics. And the fossil fuel industry is not challenging alarmist orthodoxy. It pays lips service to the rhetoric and makes investments in renewable energy.

Horse hockey! The same process of converting light to heat occurs planet-wide; the only difference is the lack of a physical barrier. Instead, CO2 reflects the heat back down instead of the glass. Actually, glass is partially opaque to infrared, making it even more like CO2. If the comparison were any closer it would not be an analogy — it would be a duplicate process.

RELATED ARTICLES

This demonstrates a general conservative group-think and lack of science literacy, as well as a lack of proficiency in English pedagogy. The way a greenhouse retains heat is fundamentally different, as a greenhouse works mostly by reducing airflow so that warm air is kept inside. Read better, dude. Nice use of Wiki as authority. Nice use of nothing as authority by the way. The processes are quite different.


  • cause and effect essay on health insurance;
  • miniskirts research papers!
  • You are here!
  • thesis in denmark company.
  • The glass of a greenhouse prevents the air heated by convection from dissipating. A layer of glass one micron thick would do this as effectively as a layer a foot thick. These may seem like trivial distinctions but they are not. You see this kind of unclear thinking frequently in the Alarmist camp. Unclear thinking leads to unwise decisions. Nor will you ever hear about the fact that most of the warming cause by CO2 has already happened and that the effect is logarithmic.

    CO2, absent positive feedbacks, will warm the planet about 1C as it doubles from day to ppm, it will have to double again to to warm another 1C. Thus less than half will make its way back to the lower atmosphere to warm the air near the surface. That makes it sound like a mirror that continually holds heat in. The real term is radiation. A molecule of CO2 absorbs a photon and nanoseconds later reradiates that photon. Some of those photons are radiated back to earth but most are radiated toward the sky and away from earth.

    Affirmative answers to these leads one to the conclusion that CO2 is not a temperature control knob and models are not accurate the way they are designed. No, affirmative answers to those questions do not lead to the conclusion that CO2 is not a temperature control knob.

    They must believe that CO2 is the main driver. You simply said that other that there are probably other temperature control knobs. Kind of wishy washy. That would mean we should be looking at other things. Also, if CO2 is not the main control knob, what is? Could it be water vapor that we should get rid of? You hit the nail on the head. In common parlance, the discussion is only about CO2. It says that more than half the surface warming since has been caused by human activity including CO2 emissions, aerosols and land use. Other human activity like land use is ignored in practice but then when you turn around and point out that CO2 is not the control knob it is made out to be, you get the response you got from Dusty.

    If alarmists think it really is all about CO2, they need to say so. If they think other factors play a role, they need to quantify the role played by those factors. But alarmists have no interest in quantifying such factors because it might lead people to worry less about CO2 and the whole objective is to scare people about CO2. We HAVE looked at other things. We know solar and volcanic activity affects temperature. We also know water vapor does too.

    We focus on CO2 because scientists believe that carbon emissions explain recent temperature changes, and that humans have a great deal of influence on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Does that mean that my weight is fixed or that diet has nothing to do with my weight? Of course not. That is to say, I can influence my weight significantly by what I eat.

    Moreover, I can eat so much or so little to become morbidly obese or anorexic , regardless of my genetics. It is ludicrous to suggest that because there are other factors that affect temperature, CO2 does nothing. If we know that one variable has a significant impact, and that we have control over that variable, then that is what we should be focusing our attention on. It is simply irrelevant from a human behavior or public policy standpoint to argue that geological activity or solar radiation is a bigger impact on temperature…. Am I the only one shocked at this? I had no idea that tenured profs, theoretically free from administrative influence, can essentially be bought off?

    I have a question. I tend to assume that the scientific consensus is correct, as I do with vaccines, cancer therapies, the fossil record, the expansion of the universe etc. As a citizen, how should one find a reasoned stance on a subject in which they lack all competence? Andy — science is not consensus of opinion, but consensus of empirical proof until the day the theory is falsified. There is consensus and empirical proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and CO2 is emitted from the burning of carbon sourced fuels, but there is no empirical proof of climate models as they have almost universally been too hot relative to actual temperatures for over 30 years, despite record CO2 emissions during that period.

    Thirty-plus years of failed climate models never been able to fill in the blank. While it is very likely that human activities are the cause of at least some of the warming over the past years, there is no robust statistical correlation. The failure of the climate models clearly demonstrates that the null hypothesis still holds true for atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Invariably climate projections are done by taking multiple runs from multiple Global Climate Models, say runs from each of 25 models.

    Than all the runs are averaged to obtain a possible outcome. The problem is that any given run from any given model is inaccurate, i. If you read what I just said carefully, the chosen outcome is an average of a number of wrong projections that is then declared to be accurate. In other words, the claim is that you can get the right conclusion by averaging a large number of wrong projections. How about rocket scientists or artillery officers?

    One of the things that bothers me is that numerous temperature databases have continual modifications being made to old data. Invariably these modifications lower old temps which makes current temperature trends look like accelerating warmth. I could understand one change at one weather station for a given date but when there are multiple changes, all to lower and lower temperatures something funky is going on. I suspect that the algorithms being used are circular.

    Basically they change one temp, which then causes the algorithm to change another and another and them you get back to the original that gets changed again and so on and so on. The biggest problem is the measurement errors. Yet when the numbers are averaged, scientists make the mistake of reading the calculator out to many, many decimal places. This how they come up with temperature increases of 0.

    This violates every measurement concept taught in physics and chemistry concerning error budgets and significant digits. Technically, 0. Not in her head immediately, mind you, but with a calculator, spreadsheet, whatever. She had to call me to her office to tell her the answer. I actually believe this story. We seem to be witnessing a strange degeneration of the learned. I recall argument with a graduate student over alternative energy.

    Her blank stare said it all.

    ALL MY FRIENDS: A Rockumentary by Camilla Ffrench

    It was published in The book starts with arithmetic, but introduces calculus by page I knew you were a reasonably intelligent man with well-informed views, but having said that, what would ever prompt you to pick up a book on practical mathematics, and by happenstance, it reads to me? Do you have a touch of Aspy going on? That would at least provide some explanation for this behavior, your obvious allegiance to La Marseillaise notwithstanding. It would not be an exaggeration to say reading probably accounts for at least three quarters of my free time; whether that be books, articles, journals, or even research studies.

    That is to say, I can certainly understand an appreciation for exposing oneself to an eclectic mix of reading material. To be sure, the unquenchable curiosity of the renaissance man is still something to be admired. Were you simply trying to brush up on your binomial distributions or something? As you probably know, we Anglo-Frenchmen can be sentimental.

    Nothing wrong with sentimentalism in measured doses. Anyone who says otherwise is not to be trusted. Writing it out, makes it appear more complicated than it is. Quick and simple. My course evaluations that semester were unsually mean. Stop pulling your punches, Stephanie. Sensible academics, like yourself, need to start thinning the herd. Morons are already overrepresented in U. The only thing worse than an moron, is moron with a college degree. I played football at a college preparatory high school that is regularly ranked among the top H.

    X — got really pissed with another guy on the team — called Mr. Z — because Mr. Want to take a guess how that happen? X was just another privileged white guy from a college prep school, and Mr. X made it clear that he thought it was horseshit Mr. At any rate, in some sense, it all worked out. X went to Georgetown and is now a D.

    Amy Kimmel (esrc4u) on Pinterest

    Z took a job with Merrill Lynch after graduating college, but was fired within a year, presumably, due to his intellectual mediocrity being exposed. Moral of the story. Colleges need to stop pushing alone people who have no business being there in the first place. Is there proof, that global warming, now known as climate change, is bad? Humans generally thrive in warmer temperatures, rather than cold ones. Some places would become inhospitable — will previously inhospitable places become fertile lushlands?

    It seems incredibly unlikely, that something as complex as weather would only change for the worse, with zero positive effects. There are cities built in places, regularly hit by tsunamis. Sea level will rise causing flooding that will displace millions of poor people. Where crops grow best will shift which may cause famines in some places while causing prosperity in others.

    Storms will be larger and more powerful heat is what powers large storms. Some large scale weather patterns will change. A few places will get cooler, most will get warmer on average. Areas depending on glacial melt for water may run out in a hundreds of years. If snowfall decreases then places nearby will have less water if supplied by melting snow in spring and summer.

    Rich countries will weather these changes with some discomfort. It could be catastrophic for low lying poor countries. These changes will happen over decades and centuries. Short in terms of climate, long in terms of political planning. Alex R. Glaciers have also melted before, then regrown—which is why they keep finding whole trees and well-preserves specimens of early man under the ones now shrinking! BTW, at present there is NO major, regional-level severe food shortage anywhere on the planet.

    The best way to handle this is not by attempting to control the weather, it is by trading with poor countries so that they may become rich, and thus handle the painfully slow changes they may or may not experience for themselves. The solution is to expand and accelerate world trade, not destroy the global economy with the Green New Deal and socialism.

    EasyDiscuss

    What is your evidence for that claim about SLR?? These scenarios have NO basis in reality and have been predicted for the last 30 years. This is the same as last century! Where are all the catastrophes from natural sea level rise to this point? Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. Where is all the catastrophic water coming from? Once you start to critically analyse the claims you realise they are based purely on modelled scenarios, and bear no resemblance to observed reality.

    The Maldives was also predicted 30 years ago to be underwater by now; it has just put in a new international runway! The gap between what the media is saying, and what the data and the science actually says is enormous. Models are NOT reality; they predict the future based purely on the assumptions that are put into them!

    What would the consequences of not using fossil fuels? I would pursuit that the human population would decrease by about three billion. Starvation, catastrophic societal breakdown. The rise in CO2 is a problem caused by the solution to what has ailed human kind since the beginning of time. The solution is technical; find ways to produce and distribute food, transport people and goods, heat and cool living spaces, etc.

    All the while maintaining social cohesion so that the solutions can be implemented carefully. None of this is trivial, and stupid people believing will not solve it. The technical issue may be how to advance a high speed rail project in California, to how to fix the social divisions that are threatening the French state, to how to grow food using less energy.

    What i hear is my municipality pushing green initiatives all the while increasing the energy use of their facilities ten fold. It is so easy to preen morally on this subject while actually making the situation worse. So far, the results seem overwhelmingly positive. The Great Depression affected many other countries as well as the United States, and as time went on, conditions worsened. Countless banks could not meet the demand for withdrawals. Thousands of people were out of work. Families struggled to put food on the table.

    In New York, Perkins worked with Governor Roosevelt to create a committee to help the unemployment crisis. It recommended that New York City use construction work such as repairing roads and building schools to put the unemployed back to work. The commissioners also agreed that there needed to be a system in order to assure that the basic needs of every American were met, despite their work status Downey.

    During this time of economic uncertainty, FDR was elected President in She accepted, under the condition that he would allow her to follow her agenda for the people. On March 4, , she was sworn in along with the other members of the Cabinet. Within days, FDR and Perkins got a series of emergency relief acts passed for the unemployed. Perkins felt strongly that it should be actively involved in improving the quality of life for all Americans. She wanted to expand public works, strengthen state employment agencies, and develop unemployment insurance. Perkins efforts ensured that people would continue to get back to work.

    There is the National Pension System, which is funded through taxes on employers and employees. There is also an Oversight of Labor Practices. The National Labor Relations board was created by the Wagner Act and continues to oversee labor unions and investigate disputes between employers and employees. There is also the Agricultural Price Supports program where farmers get paid for growing domestic crops instead of exports.

    This shows how Perkins inspired other women to become more involved in politics. The woman goes on to talk about how Perkins has broken down gender roles from the past. People at this time were seeing how great an effect Perkins would end up having on society in the future. She was the first woman to enter the line of Presidential succession. To date, there have been 22 female cabinet members Christensen. The laws that Perkins helped pass have prevented the United States from slipping into another Great Depression.

    Recovery is a word of hope. In order for the United States government to be successful, the people have to fully support it. Frances Perkins died in , but the impact of her work lives on through the reforms and laws that she helped pass Frances Perkins, First Woman in Cabinet The center is currently focused on raising the federal minimum wage Cash.

    C, the Frances Perkins house, is a U. National Historic Landmark Sprague. Perkins created and pushed ambitious reforms through the New Deal. She was a trailblazer, and while her name may not be that well known today, her work continues to be felt by all citizens; social security benefits, pensions, and a federally mandated minimum wage are directly linked back to the first woman to serve in the Presidential Cabinet of the United States. Cowdin, Mrs. Frederick P. Springfield, Illinois. This was a letter from a supporter of FDR to him. Cowdin is requesting that FDR allow Perkins to remain as a cabinet member; or allow other women to gain positions equal to hers.

    The letter gave insight to Perkins effect on the perception of women in politics. May 15 This article from the New York Times was published directly after Perkins death. It feature pictures of her and told of the successes that she had while in public office. It helped to put into perspective how great of an impact she had. Gehr, Herbert. Frances Perkins Addressing the Resolutions Committee. Life Magazine, n. This is an image of Frances Perkins in September of It shows her speaking for Equal Rights in front of the Resolutions Committee.

    She is featured wearing her iconic tri-corn hat and pearls. This was a significant improvement from the past, and it was helpful to see the raw numbers. Perkins, Frances. The Reminiscences of Frances Perkins. This is a series of information about Perkins that was put together in There were some images online of some of the pages that were interesting to see. They mainly consisted of speeches by her.

    Perkins, Frances, and Adam Cohen. The Roosevelt I Knew. New York: Penguin, This book was first published in , and has been republished today with an introduction by Adam Cohen. In it Perkins talks about her interactions with FDR over the years, starting in and up until his death. Berg, Gordon. This article talked about Perkins openness to others ideas about labor and working conditions.

    It gave me an abundance of information that was helpful for what Perkins did before she became Secretary of the Labor Department. Cannizzaro, Andrew. This article provided me with the quote that I used at the beginning of my essay. It also provided an interesting fact about Perkins in relation to Labor Day. Cash, Chris.