Even Peter Capaldi — the self - appointed security scrooge of Windsor Gardens — chews through dialogue about delinquent
bear danger levels reaching sky - high.
Not exact matches
Right now, after months in that
danger zone, the Bull &
Bear index is back at a neutral
level.
With the advent of the professional youthworker, there also came the
danger that the church as a whole and parents of teens in particular would feel that they couldn't do the discipling job, that we needed people who watched the same films, wore the same clothes, could
bear to listen to the same music, and could actually get as far as
Level 2 on a computer game.
Over time, they have become skilled at rating the
level of threat like rangers adjusting those Smokey the
Bear fire
danger signs in the national forests: «Today's Mom - fire threat
level is Green.»
If the time horizons on sea
level rise and glacial melt are potentially very long, and polar
bears probably aren't in immediate
danger from climate change, what is the very simple rallying point that is both scientifically defensible and that can be used to get people's attention and pull their heartstrings?
Here are some possible choices — in order of increasing sophistication: * All (or most) scientists agree (the principal Gore argument) * The 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years (the «hockeystick» argument) * Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, polar
bears are in
danger, etc * Correlation — both CO2 and temperature are increasing * Sea
levels are rising * Models using both natural and human forcing accurately reproduce the detailed behavior of 20th century global temperature * Modeled and observed PATTERNS of temperature trends («fingerprints») of the past 30 years agree
On the other hand, if the
bears breakdown and close below $ 4400
levels, the uptrend will be in
danger.