Slashdot Mirror

Well for the past four years they haven't been able to so my suggestion to everybody is save your money now and get ready for another recession because there is a complete lack of adult supervision in Washington and it's time we all recognized that. Being a leader means that sometimes you have to make a decision that isn't popular but one that you know is right.

Like raising taxes?
Because that's the sticking point here.
The Bush tax cuts blew an enormous hole in the budget and until that's fixed, the deficit will remain fucked.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have a serious problem called "no new taxes".
And even Mitt Romney is on record saying he won't raise taxes

Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes to claw back some money from his (at the time) massive tax cuts.

As for my perspective, yes I'm a union member and no I haven't had a pay raise for 10 years, my pension is gone, I work twice as much for 55% of the pay (in 2001). If the unions are so all-powerful and greedy, why has my standard of living dropped so much? Did unions in Wisconsin fare better? If union haters get their wish, the middle class is toast and the plutocracy will eventually prevail leaving the US with no backbone to hold it up. I don't have all the answers, but I know ragging on the unions and real attempts to bust them is a just wrong-headed.

This video by NOAA fluid dynamics laboratory is also very instructive: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/05/799721/climate-change-how-the-wet-will-get-wetter-and-the-dry-will-get-drier/

As the planet warms, the atmosphere pulls more water out of the sub-tropics as evaporation. Much of that water condenses into clouds and is transported poleward by the winds where it is eventually deposited as precipitation at the sub-polar latitudes. So, as temperatures rise, there is an increase in the total amount of water evaporating and precipitating over the Earth - a strengthening of the global hydrologic cycle.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

And none of it was because of the wars, tax cuts, etc., starting before that date.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/07/238653/animation-tax-cuts-deficit-debt/ (watch animation)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cbppdebtchart.jpg (static display of same plot)

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/06/cbpp_deficit_factors_2011.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/govt-spending-per-capita.jpg

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-thumb-560x622-58477.gif

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/02/wsj_deficit_obama_2013.png

So, before you talk about how shockingly the debt has risen in the past four years, tell us about the prior four years, and the policies from 2001-2008 that are still costing us out the wazoo.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

And none of it was because of the wars, tax cuts, etc., starting before that date.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/07/238653/animation-tax-cuts-deficit-debt/ (watch animation)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cbppdebtchart.jpg (static display of same plot)

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/06/cbpp_deficit_factors_2011.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/govt-spending-per-capita.jpg

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-thumb-560x622-58477.gif

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/02/wsj_deficit_obama_2013.png

So, before you talk about how shockingly the debt has risen in the past four years, tell us about the prior four years, and the policies from 2001-2008 that are still costing us out the wazoo.

The debt has increased approximately $5.4 trillion since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

And none of it was because of the wars, tax cuts, etc., starting before that date.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/07/238653/animation-tax-cuts-deficit-debt/ (watch animation)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cbppdebtchart.jpg (static display of same plot)

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/06/cbpp_deficit_factors_2011.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/govt-spending-per-capita.jpg

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2011/07/24editorial_graph2-popup-thumb-560x622-58477.gif

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/02/wsj_deficit_obama_2013.png

So, before you talk about how shockingly the debt has risen in the past four years, tell us about the prior four years, and the policies from 2001-2008 that are still costing us out the wazoo.

Yes, blaming Bush is exactly right in this case. Obama's deficits are the direct cause of the bubble collapse: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/15/484767/obama-budget-chart/?mobile=nc

He has failed to cleanup Bush's toxic mess of economy, sure. But large deficits are not his fault.

And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?

Well, if we're talking about the patent-whoring machines founded by the likes of J.P. Morgan, George Westinghouse, and John Rockefeller...
pretty
damn
good.

The observation period is what it is and we have pretty good records going back over 100 years. We can only work with what we have. This graph shows how temperature anomalies have shifted since the 1950's. The caption for it is:

Figure 2. Temperature anomaly distribution: The frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Area under each curve is unity. Image credit: NASA/GISS.

Notice how the curves for the past 3 decades have shifted towards the hot end of the scale increasing the chances for heat waves and decreasing the chances for cold snaps.

Show me a single Solar Salt Thermal plant running in production.

http://www.solarmillennium.de/front_content.php?idart=155&lang=2
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/05/260438/solar-can-be-baseload-spanish-csp-plant-with-storage-produces-electricity-for-24-hours-straight/?mobile=nc

There's two (or is it four?). Yes, they are smaller (in capacity) than nuclear plants. You'd need a bunch of them to replace a single nuclear power plant.

Not arguing with the assertion that we should have multiple power sources, but your opening criticism needs work.

Seriously Republicans, I know the pickings were slim, but couldn't you have done better than Romney?

Yes, they could have gone with Paul or Huntsman, but they were told neither of them had any chance of winning.

They also could have done worse than Romney though, remember everyone else who ran for the republican nomination? Santorum. Perry. Cain. Bachmann. I mean, on net neutrality, maybe some of them would have been better. For instance, maybe Cain would have accidentally been in favor of net neutrality. The issue is more complex than geography, he might have vetoed a bill he meant to sign or vice versa, it could have been net neutrality.

You hurt us, you kill us. You silence us, you torture us. You deny us basic human rights.

We aren't asking you to "bow down" to us. We are making you stop hurting us. The second we can live our life "like all the heterosexuals do," we'll stop bothering you. Asshole.

Only if done as punishment. According to Scalia, as long as it's not punishment, torture is constitutional.

STAHL: If someoneâ(TM)s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person â" if you listen to the expression âoecruel and unusual punishment,â doesnâ(TM)t that apply?

        SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think â" Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I donâ(TM)t think so.

        STAHL: Well I think if youâ(TM)re in custody, and you have a policeman whoâ(TM)s taken you into custodyâ"

        SCALIA: And you say heâ(TM)s punishing you? Whatâ(TM)s he punishing you for? ⦠When heâ(TM)s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldnâ(TM)t say heâ(TM)s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

"Show of hands: how many of you guys even knew this guy's name before the VP announcement?"

Actually, Paul Ryan has gotten a lot of mention in political news for the last few years due to his budget proposals. That's the whole reason Romney picked him for VP. If you've been paying attention to American politics (and I don't blame you for not), you should have heard of him by now. People on the left talk about him a fair bit because the media takes his "deficit-reduction" plans very seriously even though they don't actually reduce the deficit (Republicans get a free pass on this sort of thing). Here's ThinkProgress way back in 2009:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/30/37165/ryan-gop-budget/

Here's Paul Krugman in 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html

Here's Dean Baker in 2010:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/08/can-we-plese-shut-the-washington-post-down-today.html

Here's Bruce Bartlett in 2011:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/07/Wealthy-Get-Free-Pass-in-Ryan-Budget.aspx

Finally, here's some Ryan critiquing from earlier this year:

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/24/why-do-new-york-times-columnists-keep-swooning-for-paul-ryan/

And here's DeLong again from yesterday:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/in-which-i-disagree-with-josh-barro-on-paul-ryan-arithmetick-has-to-be-primary-hey-rocky-watch-me-pull-a-rabbit-out-of-th.html

You'll note that neither Ryan's budgets nor their criticisms have changed very much. As for your friends, perhaps they felt their "cut+pasted pre-digested talking points that someone else wrote" were informative enough. There's nothing wrong with referencing someone else's writing.

Well, my cite would be James Hansen's recently published paper. He specifically discusses the shift of the normal distribution of temperatures toward the hot end of the scale due to global warming. The numbers I used were just pulled out of my ass but temperatures are distributed in a normal distribution (aka bell curve) with average temperatures most common and extreme temperatures the least common. It doesn't take much of a shift in the normal distribution to significantly increase the chances of a specific extreme temperature occurring.

This post on Hansen's Sunday Op-Ed in the Washington post lays it out fairly well. Look down the page a bit at the graph titled "Shifting Distribution of Summer Temperature Anomalies" for an illustration of what I was talking about in the GP post.

It's replacing coal?

No. The coal is being burned in China. We are exporting our energy consumption beyond the reach of our regulatory regime. Natural gas only offsets growth in our domestic coal consumption.

The result is a net increase carbon emissions.

Nevermind that no overt political decision was made

Only a policy deliberately designed to make cars and fuel unaffordable may be questioned? The secondary effects of emissions standards, energy regulation, mileage standards, manufacturing regulation, safety standards, etc. on cost are all somehow immune from scrutiny?

Without businesses paying property taxes, sales taxes, business license fees, etc, the government would not have been able to build those streets.

Clearly, by your logic, the businesses which have evaded paying taxes [1] for the past several years should get no credit at all.

Fact: The majority of taxes is paid for not by corporations [2], but people. Go figure.

[1] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/?mobile=nc
[2] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm/

I don't know of any republicans that want to completely abolish the EPA.

I suspect that's because you don't want to know about them.
Bashing E.P.A. Is New Theme in G.O.P. Race
Senate Republicans Introduce Bill To Abolish The EPA
Public Rejects GOP Push to Eliminate EPA
Bachmann pledges to have the EPA's 'doors locked and lights turned off'
GOP on abolishing the EPA

The last link is a video where a number of Republicans are allowed to speak freely about what they think should be done with the EPA.

Oh fart.

Methane is present in the atmosphere at pretty significant levels. That means it's present in all water.

Endocrine disruption usually occurs at extremely small doses.

Seems to me like more pseudo science going on here.

Yeh, smartfart, summer not hot enough just yet, a little more methane helpful?

http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338505/title/Natural_gas_wells_leakier_than_believed
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/151545578/frackings-methane-trail-a-detective-story
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421588/high-methane-emissions-measured-over-gas-field-offset-climate-benefits-of-natural-gasquot/?mobile=nc
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454445/natural-gas-industry-methane-leaks-save-2-billion/
all pseudo...
but once the permafrost opens up more, this won't matter - pseudo too, it's all illusion anyway, stay fresh

Oh fart.

Methane is present in the atmosphere at pretty significant levels. That means it's present in all water.

Endocrine disruption usually occurs at extremely small doses.

Seems to me like more pseudo science going on here.

Yeh, smartfart, summer not hot enough just yet, a little more methane helpful?

http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/338505/title/Natural_gas_wells_leakier_than_believed
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/17/151545578/frackings-methane-trail-a-detective-story
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421588/high-methane-emissions-measured-over-gas-field-offset-climate-benefits-of-natural-gasquot/?mobile=nc
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454445/natural-gas-industry-methane-leaks-save-2-billion/
all pseudo...
but once the permafrost opens up more, this won't matter - pseudo too, it's all illusion anyway, stay fresh

US has lower individual tax rates, and higher corporate tax rates.

That is gross misinformation, even if technically true.
US may have high corporate tax rates on the books, but the effective tax rate is about 13.4% which is much closer to the bottom on the world scale.

... Some are blaming the leaders who didn't attend, including President Obama, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, and Prime Minister Cameron of the U.K. ... link

I agree with the parent. Rio was dead before it began.

"Last July I discussed another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite their public pledge to âoediscontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner" link

There are at least 7 independent studies showing Fox News viewers to be the most misinformed news viewers. Some even show them to be more misinformed than those who do not watch news at all.

Let's do this up right denier. Let's rock.

So what? I predict that the moon is now made of green cheese. Now, the thing has been predicted. It doesn't matter to the truth of that statement that the prediction was spurious.

Except your predictions aren't the result of a decades long investigation by scientists who are experts in their respective fields and have arrived at their conclusions through the most rigorous process of falsehood rejection / truth detection humankind has ever devised- the process of conducting properly constructed scientific experiments and publishing them in qualified peer reviewed journals .

The fact that you equate in argument your worthless "prediction" with the end product of the above process says one thing and one thing only about you. Like all deniers; you are, amongst a long list of other things, narcissistic .

"Modest" versus "catastrophic" are estimates of harm. Those people above aren't doing cost/benefit analysis, hence, their terms aren't credible.

Because you and your FoxNews denier kind decide what is credible, not reality and not scientists. This is you wielding your magical amulet of spin again. If you speak words, then they somehow make reality. If you speak a rebuttal, it has value and potency. Scientists have their opinion and you have your opinion of the scientists, so everything is equal, because, hey. it's a free country and everyone gets their opinion.

Catastrophic Climate Change:

Catastrophic is used to describe the course we're on :

from:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

In fact, the scientific literature now makes clear that even 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) warming would destroy the livable climate 7 billion people have come to depend upon

EPA Director of the Department of Pollutant Decrees, Ray Donaldson, said,

Back before carbon dioxide was dangerous, we simply assumed that water vapor was also benign. But all reputable scientists now agree that the increased water vapor content of the atmosphere from such sources as burning of fuels and power plant cooling towers will also enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to potentially catastrophic warming.

from

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity/

Here comes the Dust Bowl

James Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don't Act Now

And here in graphic dertail is a degree by degree description of what the rise in temperature they're talking about actually translates to on earth. It's literally the end of the world.

http://www.universalrights.net/news/display.php?id=7672

from:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

http://www.wrsc.org/story/governments-failing-avert-catastrophic-climate-change-iea-warns

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

http://

Let's do this up right denier. Let's rock.

So what? I predict that the moon is now made of green cheese. Now, the thing has been predicted. It doesn't matter to the truth of that statement that the prediction was spurious.

Except your predictions aren't the result of a decades long investigation by scientists who are experts in their respective fields and have arrived at their conclusions through the most rigorous process of falsehood rejection / truth detection humankind has ever devised- the process of conducting properly constructed scientific experiments and publishing them in qualified peer reviewed journals .

The fact that you equate in argument your worthless "prediction" with the end product of the above process says one thing and one thing only about you. Like all deniers; you are, amongst a long list of other things, narcissistic .

"Modest" versus "catastrophic" are estimates of harm. Those people above aren't doing cost/benefit analysis, hence, their terms aren't credible.

Because you and your FoxNews denier kind decide what is credible, not reality and not scientists. This is you wielding your magical amulet of spin again. If you speak words, then they somehow make reality. If you speak a rebuttal, it has value and potency. Scientists have their opinion and you have your opinion of the scientists, so everything is equal, because, hey. it's a free country and everyone gets their opinion.

Catastrophic Climate Change:

Catastrophic is used to describe the course we're on :

from:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

In fact, the scientific literature now makes clear that even 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) warming would destroy the livable climate 7 billion people have come to depend upon

EPA Director of the Department of Pollutant Decrees, Ray Donaldson, said,

Back before carbon dioxide was dangerous, we simply assumed that water vapor was also benign. But all reputable scientists now agree that the increased water vapor content of the atmosphere from such sources as burning of fuels and power plant cooling towers will also enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to potentially catastrophic warming.

from

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity/

Here comes the Dust Bowl

James Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don't Act Now

And here in graphic dertail is a degree by degree description of what the rise in temperature they're talking about actually translates to on earth. It's literally the end of the world.

http://www.universalrights.net/news/display.php?id=7672

from:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

http://www.wrsc.org/story/governments-failing-avert-catastrophic-climate-change-iea-warns

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

http://

Let's do this up right denier. Let's rock.

So what? I predict that the moon is now made of green cheese. Now, the thing has been predicted. It doesn't matter to the truth of that statement that the prediction was spurious.

Except your predictions aren't the result of a decades long investigation by scientists who are experts in their respective fields and have arrived at their conclusions through the most rigorous process of falsehood rejection / truth detection humankind has ever devised- the process of conducting properly constructed scientific experiments and publishing them in qualified peer reviewed journals .

The fact that you equate in argument your worthless "prediction" with the end product of the above process says one thing and one thing only about you. Like all deniers; you are, amongst a long list of other things, narcissistic .

"Modest" versus "catastrophic" are estimates of harm. Those people above aren't doing cost/benefit analysis, hence, their terms aren't credible.

Because you and your FoxNews denier kind decide what is credible, not reality and not scientists. This is you wielding your magical amulet of spin again. If you speak words, then they somehow make reality. If you speak a rebuttal, it has value and potency. Scientists have their opinion and you have your opinion of the scientists, so everything is equal, because, hey. it's a free country and everyone gets their opinion.

Catastrophic Climate Change:

Catastrophic is used to describe the course we're on :

from:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

In fact, the scientific literature now makes clear that even 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) warming would destroy the livable climate 7 billion people have come to depend upon

EPA Director of the Department of Pollutant Decrees, Ray Donaldson, said,

Back before carbon dioxide was dangerous, we simply assumed that water vapor was also benign. But all reputable scientists now agree that the increased water vapor content of the atmosphere from such sources as burning of fuels and power plant cooling towers will also enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to potentially catastrophic warming.

from

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity/

Here comes the Dust Bowl

James Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don't Act Now

And here in graphic dertail is a degree by degree description of what the rise in temperature they're talking about actually translates to on earth. It's literally the end of the world.

http://www.universalrights.net/news/display.php?id=7672

from:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

http://www.wrsc.org/story/governments-failing-avert-catastrophic-climate-change-iea-warns

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

http://

Let's do this up right denier. Let's rock.

So what? I predict that the moon is now made of green cheese. Now, the thing has been predicted. It doesn't matter to the truth of that statement that the prediction was spurious.

Except your predictions aren't the result of a decades long investigation by scientists who are experts in their respective fields and have arrived at their conclusions through the most rigorous process of falsehood rejection / truth detection humankind has ever devised- the process of conducting properly constructed scientific experiments and publishing them in qualified peer reviewed journals .

The fact that you equate in argument your worthless "prediction" with the end product of the above process says one thing and one thing only about you. Like all deniers; you are, amongst a long list of other things, narcissistic .

"Modest" versus "catastrophic" are estimates of harm. Those people above aren't doing cost/benefit analysis, hence, their terms aren't credible.

Because you and your FoxNews denier kind decide what is credible, not reality and not scientists. This is you wielding your magical amulet of spin again. If you speak words, then they somehow make reality. If you speak a rebuttal, it has value and potency. Scientists have their opinion and you have your opinion of the scientists, so everything is equal, because, hey. it's a free country and everyone gets their opinion.

Catastrophic Climate Change:

Catastrophic is used to describe the course we're on :

from:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

In fact, the scientific literature now makes clear that even 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) warming would destroy the livable climate 7 billion people have come to depend upon

EPA Director of the Department of Pollutant Decrees, Ray Donaldson, said,

Back before carbon dioxide was dangerous, we simply assumed that water vapor was also benign. But all reputable scientists now agree that the increased water vapor content of the atmosphere from such sources as burning of fuels and power plant cooling towers will also enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to potentially catastrophic warming.

from

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity/

Here comes the Dust Bowl

James Hansen Is Correct About Catastrophic Projections For U.S. Drought If We Don't Act Now

And here in graphic dertail is a degree by degree description of what the rise in temperature they're talking about actually translates to on earth. It's literally the end of the world.

http://www.universalrights.net/news/display.php?id=7672

from:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

http://www.wrsc.org/story/governments-failing-avert-catastrophic-climate-change-iea-warns

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/25/490463/iea-global-co2-emissions-hit-new-record-in-2011-keeping-world-on-track-for-devastating-11f-warming/

http://

Painting roofs white could do much more than these risky geoengineering boondogles.
  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/30/492153/how-painting-roofs-white-can-help-turn-off-the-world-for-a-year/

and over complicating others. But the big one you're missing is that one of the main functions of any civilization is deciding who gets what, how, and why. How do we divvy up the spoils of civilization. When socialists talk about the 'safety net' they're taking this basic function of civilization for granted. Heck, most people do. It's the primary reason civilizations are formed. That and cooperation to achieve larger goals that benefit everyone.

That's what makes it hard for socialists to have a dialog with libertarians. I just finished (gave up) on a long thread with a libertarian over why it was our civilization allocated so much of it's output to 1% (Meg Whitman happen to be my straw man/gal, but I'm afraid it only served to confuse the issue further). Whether you like it or not a civilization will come up with some system to allocate it's resources. Libertarians maintain that natural order will optimize this. But then I watch CEOs wreak entire economies for their own short term gains and find it impossible to reconcile this. Combine that with the realities of out dog eat dog capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich and Libertarianism and the free market become hopeless ideals that inevitably descend into oppressive oligarchies or Somalian anarchy (depending on if there's enough money to maintain an army to oppress the civilians). I've yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise, but you're welcome to try. Now for the over simplification: Doctors don't function in the free market under the rules you set out. Read here why. Long story short is you don't have the specialized knowledge to know a good heart surgeon and you don't buy enough heart transplants to be a good judge of the product.

Oh, and one last jab at the free market: How do you reconcile massively increasing productivity putting workers out of work? Do we let those people starve (after all, forget safety net, now I'm talking outright socialism)? There's not enough work for them any more. We don't need them to work. What's more, as we need less and less of them supply and demand make their labor increasingly worthless. I guess they can all go work in those Biotech jobs from 1990... but now I'm just being flippant :P. And if you haven't seen it yet watch this

Every time you deniers "call us on it", we link again and again and again to the real science. You ask for the data, the data is available. You cast aspersions on the data, and it's independently verified. You fund studies meant to show that there's no warming, the study shows that there really is warming.

When we "call you on it", you disappear into the woods.

This is why I never bought the whole "we should leave more things up to the states to decide" line of argument

As someone living in Wisconsin, I completely agree.

I shudder to think how much worse the fuckheads in this state's government would have screwed us if they'd had more power. They did enough damage with the power they have. We've got a full-blown witch hunt going on right now over people who signed a recall petition against Governor Walker, our Supreme Court justices are physically assaulting each other, disenfranchisement efforts are in full swing, and women now have to prove to a doctor they're not being coerced before they're allowed to have an abortion (because, you know, there are tons of forced abortions in this country, am I right?) and allowing schools to restrict sex-ed programs to abstinence-only...

Luckily we can still recall our reps, although they did everything they could to try and take that right away from us, too.

The USPS is struggling because they've been required by a vindictive right-wing to maintain an absurd 75-year pension plan commitment,

My grandfather, a postmaster for decades and a life-long Democrat, was the Secretary-Treasurer of the National Association of Postmasters (NAPUS) from 1953 to 1971, and set up that pension plan. That is his baby.

No, that's not what they're talking about. Please see the last section of the Changes under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 section of the article on the Postal Regulatory Commission (bolded emphasis added):

The PAEA stipulates that the USPS is to take any surplus at the end of a fiscal year, and put that amount into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund to prepay for employees retirement costing the USPS a total of 500 billion dollars between 2007 and 2015. This requirement also explicitly stated the USPS it stop using its savings to reduce postal debt, which was stipulated in Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. This is in addition to deductions from pay for federal contribution to social services . This pre-funding method is unique to the USPS. In June of 2011, the USPS had to suspend its weekly payment of 115 million into the fund because it had reached 8 billion dollars in debt and the retirement plan had a surplus of 6.9 billion dollars. The schedule rate of payment has been changed and the USPS is currently expected to make a payment of 5.6 billion no later than September 30, 2012.

So no, nobody is complaining about your grandfather's baby. We're complaining about the absurd stipulations from Congress that keep the USPS from using it's surpluses to pay off debt, ensuring they'll be constantly underwater, and confiscates that money to pre-pay, in less than a decade, the cost of retirements for the next 75 years. Most of that money will go to the retirements of employees who haven't even been born, and possibly even some of their parents. Of course, that assumes those employees will even exist, since there won't be any employees in 75 years if this onerous burden kills the Postal Service, an objective this legislation seems to be aiming for.

Canada, the most similar economy to that of the US, does so well economically in part because it's had a huge tradition of immigrant entrepreneurship for decades.
Whereas the immigrant xenophobia in the US leads to incidents like a senior manager at a foreign car plant getting arrested for not having the right paperwork. If you treat foreign investors (who could put plants elsewhere) like that, what does it say to someone thinking of moving to the US to start a business?

Don't kid yourself that public debates such as those that occur here on slashdot don't make a difference; they do. Public opinion is changing and the reason is not that the government has released illustrated pamphlets, it's because just ordinary individuals everywhere, acting on their own initiative and motivated by their own conscience and understanding are waging an public war against deniers online, over dinner tables and in the media.

. If you doubt that we're effective, here's some good news for your efforts (about three quarters of the way down under the heading - Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events:)

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Extreme-Weather-Climate-Preparedness.pdf

Highlight- 69% of Americans believe global warming is effecting the weather in the US.

then there's this, via TomDispatch.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/science/earth/americans-link-global-warming-to-extreme-weather-poll-says.html

and this:

63% of respondents believe the United States should move forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473484/public-opinion-the-death-of-public-support-for-global-warming-action-is-greatly-exaggerated/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

and this:

65% of Americans backed the idea of imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions/other greenhouse gases

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/10/461246/gallup-americans-have-more-guts-than-obama-support-mandatory-controls-on-co2-emissions/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

and this:

75% now support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/26/471840/poll-75-of-americans-support-co2-regulation-60-support-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

Don't kid yourself that public debates such as those that occur here on slashdot don't make a difference; they do. Public opinion is changing and the reason is not that the government has released illustrated pamphlets, it's because just ordinary individuals everywhere, acting on their own initiative and motivated by their own conscience and understanding are waging an public war against deniers online, over dinner tables and in the media.

. If you doubt that we're effective, here's some good news for your efforts (about three quarters of the way down under the heading - Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events:)

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Extreme-Weather-Climate-Preparedness.pdf

Highlight- 69% of Americans believe global warming is effecting the weather in the US.

then there's this, via TomDispatch.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/science/earth/americans-link-global-warming-to-extreme-weather-poll-says.html

and this:

63% of respondents believe the United States should move forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473484/public-opinion-the-death-of-public-support-for-global-warming-action-is-greatly-exaggerated/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

and this:

65% of Americans backed the idea of imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions/other greenhouse gases

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/10/461246/gallup-americans-have-more-guts-than-obama-support-mandatory-controls-on-co2-emissions/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

and this:

75% now support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/26/471840/poll-75-of-americans-support-co2-regulation-60-support-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

Don't kid yourself that public debates such as those that occur here on slashdot don't make a difference; they do. Public opinion is changing and the reason is not that the government has released illustrated pamphlets, it's because just ordinary individuals everywhere, acting on their own initiative and motivated by their own conscience and understanding are waging an public war against deniers online, over dinner tables and in the media.

. If you doubt that we're effective, here's some good news for your efforts (about three quarters of the way down under the heading - Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events:)

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Extreme-Weather-Climate-Preparedness.pdf

Highlight- 69% of Americans believe global warming is effecting the weather in the US.

then there's this, via TomDispatch.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/science/earth/americans-link-global-warming-to-extreme-weather-poll-says.html

and this:

63% of respondents believe the United States should move forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/30/473484/public-opinion-the-death-of-public-support-for-global-warming-action-is-greatly-exaggerated/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

and this:

65% of Americans backed the idea of imposing mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions/other greenhouse gases

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/10/461246/gallup-americans-have-more-guts-than-obama-support-mandatory-controls-on-co2-emissions/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

and this:

75% now support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/26/471840/poll-75-of-americans-support-co2-regulation-60-support-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=d3e9d40391-TD_McKibben5_3_2012&utm_medium=email

There are elements of the defense industry in every state and they donate to nearly everyone in congress. For a few thousand in campaign donations to the right congressmen, they can get billions in contracts like this. That's why unless there's a significant public outcry, this kind of stuff passes all the time. OpenSecrets.org is an excellent resource for finding out what industries are contributing to your senators and congressmen. Internet sources like ThinkProgress and The Young Turks report on these sorts of things regularly.

I have to agree this particular thing would be a waste. But there's wasting money and then there's wasting money. The military budget is about 5% of government spending. This pales in comparison to the debt that Obama has racked up in such a short time.

You may want to look at this and this and this.

Or you could just get all your "facts" from FOX.

Republicans love to proclaim that they're deficit hawks, unlike the tax-and-spend Democrats. But if you look at what they *do* instead of what they say, it becomes obvious that they're tax-(less)-and-spend-(more) hawks.

They only object to spending money when it won't help someone who doesn't need it.

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world. Without the loopholes most US companies would leave the country or go broke.

But with loopholes, the US corporate tax burden is on the low end of OECD countries.

Supposedly also Japan has a "value added tax" that pushes their corporate tax rate higher than the USA.

Wrong,. Everything you said is wrong. That's why you get downmodded.

Point 1- he specifically did NOT say "global warming may or may not be happening". he said it IS happening but not at the rate he predicted. So you're WRONG. You understand what WRONG means? It means change the way you process information because you're coming to WRONG conclusions.

Of course since you only had to READ what he said and parrot it back to see that you're WRONG, I'm not sure where there is for you to go except to take a remedial reading course.

2) Lovelock is NOT a climate scientist and his predictions were NOT based on peer reviewed publications in respected journals. Rather, he was an "idea guy" and "visonary". If the world was understandable and explicable based on what "visionaries" "see" and not SCIENCE then the native Americans would be running the country right now.

3) He's no leader of he climate change movement just because he's not a climate scientist. Limbaugh and Hannity have the same limitation.

Joe Romm et. al- mainstream, publishing scientists, have criticized him for years for his way out predictions and ignorance of what the science is actually telling us:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/

5) Western civilization IS science and you ignore it and what the (vast vast ) majority of it scientists tell you at your peril and unfortunately mine and my family's since it's not really possible to hand you and your type your own fucking Earth then sit back and have popcorn while we watch you bury yourselves in your own excrement.

6) So go fuck yourself.

4)

Companies bankrupt under Bain: 30%.
Companies that bankrupted within 2 years of being "spun off" from Bain: 80%.

The Bain Capital methodology was simple.

Step 1: Buy out a company.
Step 2: Sell off all the assets you can, and raid the pension fund.
Step 3: Hide stolen assets in tax shelters and overseas accounts.
Step 4: Put the company into bankruptcy to shift the burden of pension fund and other debts to taxpayers. If necessary for state law, "spin off" company into unowned status first.

Mitt Romney: corporate thief and fraudster. Bain Capital's corporate raider scheme wasn't just fraud, it was fraud that put the burden of its behavior on the taxpayers.

Companies bankrupt under Bain: 30%.
Companies that bankrupted within 2 years of being "spun off" from Bain: 80%.

The Bain Capital methodology was simple.

Step 1: Buy out a company.
Step 2: Sell off all the assets you can, and raid the pension fund.
Step 3: Hide stolen assets in tax shelters and overseas accounts.
Step 4: Put the company into bankruptcy to shift the burden of pension fund and other debts to taxpayers. If necessary for state law, "spin off" company into unowned status first.

Mitt Romney: corporate thief and fraudster. Bain Capital's corporate raider scheme wasn't just fraud, it was fraud that put the burden of its behavior on the taxpayers.

Solar thermal works 24/7/356.

It does?!

On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight.

Yep, that sounds like battle tested technology right there...solar plants working for 24 hours is less than a year old.

Although...that's not even what the company is pushing:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/05/260438/solar-can-be-baseload-spanish-csp-plant-with-storage-produces-electricity-for-24-hours-straight/

Torresol says that the plant will provide electricity for about 20 hours each day on average, with numerous days in the summer seeing 24-hours of supply.
So, more like 22/7/365. But, no, really, we'll be fine without those 730 hours.

There are only a few operating commercial-scale plants around the world, and Torresol’s is the only one with a 15-hour molten salt storage capability.

Better not hope for a long stretch of cloudy days...

And that's just baseload power. We're not talking about spikes yet. AND we still have to account for increasing power demand.

Finally...
This smaller 19.9 MW power tower plant will generate about 110 GWh per year.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Japan for the next line)
According to the IEA the Japan gross production of electricity was ... 1,041 TWh in 2009

So... 1,041,000 GWh / 110 GWh ... All they need are 10,000 of these 22/7/365 solar plants and Japan is GOLD! ...Sorry, but this doesn't convince me that we can shut off nukes today. Get back to me in a decade or two.

Republicans just don't want to have to pay for someone else's birth control, you troll

They do, however, want someone else to pay for their hardons.

Also, if you honestly believe a group referred to as the "Religious Right" does not use religion as their motivation, well, I've got this bridge in NY state you may be interested in purchasing...

When we pool our money together to buy politicians

Hence deregulation to transfer the savings of the American people away from them, inequitable free trade to eliminate jobs and suppress wages, and the levying of private taxes by Big Carbon and "high finance"/"the speculators" in order to ensure that the many have ever less money to pool together.

James Delingpole? Seriously? James "interpreter of interpretations" Delingpole? James "does not read any scientific literature" Delingpole?

That James delingpole?

Wow, what a great scientific source!

This is similar in nature to the Laffer curve. It depends where exactly on the curve you are, and we have no real idea (in either case).

Debunking the Jevons Paradox:

The theory behind it is sound: Lower the cost of anything and people will use more of it, including the cost of running energy consuming equipment. But as with many economic ideas that are sound theory (like the idea that you can raise government revenues by cutting tax rates), the trick is in knowing how far to take them in reality. (Cutting tax rates from 100% to 50% would certainly raise revenues. Cutting them from 50% to 0% would just as surely lower them.)

Fair enough. Of course I live in the "communist" state of Canada, where we believe in universal health care. I am not really well versed on the specifics of the American model, other than that it costs more per capita and covers a smaller percentage of Americans. Also, I don't have to worry about walking into a hospital and worrying if my insurance company is going to deny my lifesaving treatment because I forgot to cross a 'T' in my name (thankfully, there are no Ts in my names).

I'll just rely on a quick google search, with the first few hits challenging your earlier assertion regarding the coverage situation, at least as it relates to "your sides" arguments.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/08/05/289117/hannity-blasts-insurance-coverage-for-birth-control-defends-viagra-that-is-a-medical-problem/?mobile=nc

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538

http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/09/10622742-bill-oreilly-viagra-should-be-covered-birth-control-should-not

I find it funny that I got roped into this. I think I'm slipping. My main point was how you started with an argument against funding fusion research, and some how you compared it to the ongoing and sexist controversy regarding women's reproductive health. Kudos. You, sir, are a grade A troll.

I rather doubt that the economic models are that strong, and you have certainly not supported your claim. They're not based on physics, we don't have thousands of years of quite good economic data (tree rings, ice cores) or hundreds of thousands of years of not-too-bad data (sediment cores). They did not predict this slump that we're in now, and alleged economists are arguing (from the so-called "fresh" and "salt" water sides) whether the prescription to revive the economy is more government borrowing and spending (for those countries that control their currencies, i.e., not the southern EU) or more austerity. Lots of people predicted that Obama's stimulus package would spark hyperinflation, which has thus far failed to materialize -- were they using economic models? If the economic models are so good, why is there so much disagreement over the right action to take to get people back to work?

Business in the US has a long history of crying "wolf", and the groups that oppose action to reduce GHG emissions also opposed (for example) Clinton's tax increases, claiming that they would be very bad for the economy (quotes here: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/ ). They were quite wrong in their prediction; why should I pay any attention to what they say now? Or were they making shit up then, but now, now, they are using reliable economic models?