News of the day

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Sounds like a jobs opportunity.  Instead of working against the health insurance law it would make more sense to work to get more new doctors in the pipeline.  The notion that current doctors will just up and quit is ludicrous.  What would they do for a living?  Become fast food managers at drastically reduced pay? Or they would go into some other technical and educated field? You're being ludicrous.

Or they might retire? A lot of doctors are old enough and rich enough to do so if they want.

Oh yeah I forgot that retiring was possible. I've already consigned myself to the fact that I'll never get to do it. 

crimhead wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Oh yeah I forgot that retiring was possible. I've already consigned myself to the fact that I'll never get to do it.  I'll second that.

Yep, I'll work until I die, not by choice.



Quotes

"How do we explain the heat? One word: summer. I grew up in central Illinois
  in a house without air conditioning. What is so unusual about this?"
    -- George Will, saying things aren't really getting hotter     Link


 When George sees a problem, he does some research to find out
 where science is so he can argue the other side.

 Hey George, can you read a chart?

 

 This says 86 American cities set new heat records in June.

 How does that say, "It's just another summer" to you?


 
 



"Global warming is the biggest hoax since Hitler."
Subject: Indiana corn crop

Bart

The corn crop in Indiana is already at a 30% loss.
If no measurable rains falls in the next three weeks, enjoy your $15,00 box of Frosted Flakes.

As of today we are 12" down on rainfall. That number is unprecedented.
Even the old fossil farmers say they have never seen a drought like this,

Anyone who doesn't believe in climate change should take a look
at the dying corn in the fields. The soybeans look like sh*t too.
 Brian


Brian, you must be wrong.
George Will says "It's just summer."

Your problem is - the corn is LYING!


"Yes, the corn is lying and the glaciers are merely hiding.
  Hell, thermometers are known Leftists, too. "




Edited by Slartibartfast - July 10 2012 at 15:18

^ keep on pretending.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 10 2012 at 15:23

Keep on pretending what? Pretending that a diagram with 3 arrows isn't an accurate representation of the U.S. economy? Keep pretending that rising global temperatures =/= anthropogenic climate change?

You're ridiculous. You act like complex issues can be summed up with a flashy picture and a witty caption.

And if you're not doing it intentionally, then you should probably look up that great plastic island. The claims are incredibly inflated, it's not visible from space as people seem to think, most of the plastic is rather small or microscopic, the size is not nearly what's claimed, it's not solid, it's not an island, etc. Most of the pictures you see from the thing are fabrications taken from Manilla harbor or a place similar to that. 


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 10 2012 at 15:59

I'm telling you to not misrepresent issues. And then you come come back and misrepresent my views. If you have a position, then actually argue it. If not, then you might be able to whack down bales of straw quicker as a farmer than here.

Epignosis wrote: Speaking of that

stonebeard wrote: thellama73 wrote: Why is it that when the weather is normal, global warming activists claim that it's happening too slowly for us to notice on a day to day basis; when the weather is hot, they claim that this proves global warming; and when the weather is cold, they claim that this also proves global warming? Furthermore, why does no one ask the most important questions? Even if we assume that global warming is real and that it is caused by humans, can we realistically do anything to stop it? Some of the claims I've heard by folks like Al Gore seem to indicate that we can't. Even if we can stop it, would the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs? To my knowledge, no one has done this type of analysis. I think people would just assume we'd try to stop it out of basic decency. If we found out we had been causing global warming, then no one would would want to say "F**k it guys, let's keep on chuggin till we burn to death!", revelling in the same activities that got us here. Even if it's futile, which it may not be, it seems just disgusting to continue down the same course for the sake of industry or some other crap.

Your argument makes no sense. It's not "basic decency" if the cost of fixing the problem is far worse than the problem itself. Surely you can imagine a solution so draconian that it would not be worth implementing, can't you? In that case, there is a line which should not be crossed for the sake of lower temperatures, and all I'm saying is that we should know where that line is before we do anything rash.

It's foolish to say "there is a problem, therefore we must act" unless you understand the costs and benefits of both the problem and the solution. To my knowledge, no one has bothered to do this analysis in the case of climate change.

You say "for the sake of industry" as if you're talking about a few robber barons living in isolated castles in Austria, but industry is what allow people to make enough money to eat, to have a place to live, to have transportation and many other things that make life livable. You complain about the plight of the poor now, just imagine how bad it was as little as two hundred years ago for them. Industry is what changed that, and before we do away with it in the name of environmentalism, I think we had better be jolly sure that the alternative is worse.


Edited by thellama73 - July 10 2012 at 22:18

That's the problem. Everyone "assumes" how bad the problem is, but that's not a good way to conduct science. If we dump billions into trying to fix the problem and it does no good, then I would argue that's a bad use of money. Most of the predictions I've heard (although vague and not very scientifically rigorous) seem to that hybrid cars and recycling are going to do absolutely nothing, since China and India have no intention of cooperating. Is it rational to cripple our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal?

Again, I'm not making any claims about whether it would be worth it or not. I'm just saying someone needs to actually do the analysis before any major policy option is taken. But no one ever will, because it is easier to talk about scary doomsday scenarios and to use fear as a weapon to get what politicians and special interest groups want.

thellama73 wrote: That's the problem. Everyone "assumes" how bad the problem is, but that's not a good way to conduct science. If we dump billions into trying to fix the problem and it does no good, then I would argue that's a bad use of money. Most of the predictions I've heard (although vague and not very scientifically rigorous) seem to that hybrid cars and recycling are going to do absolutely nothing, since China and India have no intention of cooperating. Is it rational to cripple our economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal? Again, I'm not making any claims about whether it would be worth it or not. I'm just saying someone needs to actually do the analysis before any major policy option is taken. But no one ever will, because it is easier to talk about scary doomsday scenarios and to use fear as a weapon to get what politicians and special interest groups want.

This has been done. Part of the issue is that it's exceedingly hard to do. Even local weather prediction tends to be tumultuous. Global scale predictions just amplify this difficulty. The precision of our data and  our understanding of causality just isn't there. We can know general trends, but barring some drastic changes we're not going to get a cost figure that economic analysis can be done upon.