To answer your question - because it's more dangerous. A recent study compared incidences of side effects and injuries between those who got the usual schedule and children who had delayed or spread-out schedules - and found 80% more injuries in the latter group. Spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risks. They are extremely minor risks, but when spread out - they become much more significant. Furthermore it increases the risk of actually getting one of the diseases the vaccines are meant to protect against by a huge margin as the delay period extends how long you are vulnerable before being vaccinated.
Those laws do not, in fact, exist. What DOES exist is laws that say if you think your child was injured by a vaccine and the injury is anywhere on a long list of things which we know MIGHT happen, even if they only happen on a one in a billion cases - you don't have to prove your claim, you get paid. No need for lawyers, no need for expensive court cases, no need to deal with the incredible scientific complexity of actually proving causality - you win, guilt by the vaccine producer is ASSUMED.
The reason you get paid from a big fund is so that the vaccine producers can actually afford to pay these "guilty with no chance to prove innocence" claims against them. The reason the claimants get these "assumption that the other guy is guilty" benefits is because vaccines are often mandatory - and like all medicine they do have risks. Those risks may be incredibly minor but they exist and may hit some people - so those people are simply given the benefit of the doubt.
Linus used to say "Don't make backups, just stick your stuff on an FTP server and let the world copy it"... I don't think he meant that it was supposed to happen without your consent or knowledge however.
Actually yes. A few years ago a number of gun runners in South Africa we're caught smuggling weapons to the LRA. They defended their actions not by saying "we are greedy gunrunners happy to supply child soldiers" but by saying "we are christians who armed fellow christians in a war against evil Muslims". They got huge public sympathy and people were furious when the fortunately secular court system found them guilty of violation of the countries constitutional prohibition against trading arms to human rights violaters.
See the post below by the beekeeper's son. A beekeeper considers colony death an incredibly rare event. Many retire with most of their first colonies still alive..
As we speak Budhists are murdering Muslims on at least 2 islands in a vast religiously driven ethnic cleansing war that's been going on for over a year now.
You do actually have examples of ALL the above murdering every OTHER of the above for exactly that reason - in fact the single deadliest religious terrorist group on the planet is the Christian Lord's Resistance Army. Islamic extermists could take lessons - those guys kill more people in a month than all Islamic groups combined have managed in a decade ! You just don't HEAR about the others very much, because they don't make the news, because the places where they happen don't have oil.
The vast majority of atheists in America, particularly those who live in conservative areas report hiding their beliefs from neighbours (often claiming to be agnostic) for fear of discrimination and reprisal.
It would appear that even in the US of A atheists feel legitimately scared of religious people who are decidedly NOT Muslims. 3 Atheist murders in a short period is distressing but hardly above average, it COULD be just a random statistically clump which has no deeper meaning. There is nothing to suggest that this happens more frequently there than among Christians in the USA. In fact, there isn't even any proof yet that this particular person's murder (or any of them) were even related to their writings - no trials yet, no evidence or motives known. The country is in a state of significant civil upheaval where murders are a frequent ocurrence. That these three victims happen to be atheist may be entirely unrelated to their deaths. A good atheist should not form opinions before evidence is available and ought to know about statistical clumping fallacies and selective reporting.
Of course it's also possible that these WERE religiously motivated murders - we don't have enough evidence ot judge yet, we don't EVEN have a signficant enough statistical clump to consider it an unlikely coincidence To get a valid sample you must EXCLUDE the data that originally drew your attention from your data-set, then make a prediction of what would happen if there was a NON-random event, and only if that prediction holds can you rule out randomness. So we now suspect that atheist bloggers may be getting targeted for their writings. We can predict that more deaths will follow, in quick sucession. If another happens -then we can NOT say "4 deaths now" - we say 1 death matching the prediction, if another 3 happen in a reasonable timeframe THEN you've got something MORE than mere coincidence.
Oh - and Muslim extermists are hardly the most violent religious lot around. That title is actually held by a Christian group. The Lords Resistance Army kills about as many people every month as all the Islamic terrorists in the world combined do in a decade - and that was in the decade that include 9/11, in a typical decade it's about a 5th of what the LRA does monthly.
The reason you don't HEAR about the LRA murders is because they don't happen where there is oil or, indeed, any resource of importance to America. They just happen somewhere in Africa, which as far as America is concerned is basically this big country full of children with distended bellies where everybody dies by age 10 anyway.
Hercules doesn't really offer much. That other middle-eastern miracle worker son-of-god guy is promissing an afterlife, which is quite an appealing offer but Kwankwaka the goat-headed god of mice in Papa New Guinea is offering pigs and all the wheat I can carry ! Bacon and Beer man ! Bacon and Beer !
The obsurificationd service, integrated in systemd which locates any log entries related to the error you want to resolve in the binary log upon access - then translates them via google translate several times into random languages and back into English before presenting them.
>It is curious to observe the pro government mania taking place at this time, the time of the biggest economic downturn pretty much in history of the USA
> the downturn caused by the government power grab and destruction of individual freedoms. This government has less power than the previous one, and has restored some of the freedoms the last one took - and protected freedoms all previous governments have denied. None of which is actually relevant since the only government actions that preceded the recession were DEREGULATION - that is to say, the exact OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. Like the depression, this recession was caused by reckless and outright fraudulent bankers.
Where it gets really ironic is that this issue is essentially unrelated to the economy in it's entirety. You can't have a free market around a natural monopoly - it's literally physically impossible.
Plenty of dogs will consistently catch a ball out of the air - you want to tell me they don't know where it's going to land ? Children catch balls many years before we teach them the maths needed to calculate their curves.
We have an instinctive ability to do that math, an intuitive knack for maths and physics which is quite powerful. If we could apply it to school maths hardly anybody would ever fail.
The trouble is, it's also imperfect, most people intuitively believe that heavier objects fall faster for example, which we know isn't actually true. Studies have found that when you give people multiple-choice (basic) physics questions where on some questions there is a scientifically correct answer AND an "intiuitive" answer, then most people get the science one wrong on those -even if they got the right answer where no intuitive one was provided, and even physics professors take significantly longer to answer the questions where there is an intuitive but wrong answer provided - as they have to force their brains to override their intuition and apply what they know.
With what we know about how human brains intuitively work with basic physics - claiming that dogs cannot have similar abilities is an extremely extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence from you.
In their defense, that number is probably the most accurately calculated average economic contribution per individual ever done. Nobody else cared enough to do the math. It is, also, a low-balled figure - since it doesn't include any kind of compensation for the emotional losses to families and excludes even fairly common edge-cases like children ending up in foster care if they have no living relatives anymore. Now it's very hard to put a number on sadness, courts have systems for doing so but they are controversial at best, people always declare them either too high or too low. That's exactly why the EPA figure doesn't try to.
What it does do is allow them to put a floor-price on human lives risked and regulate at least somewhat sensibly - which is all it's meant to do. In a perfect world the acceptable death toll for any industry is always 0. Nobody ever killed in an industrial accident, nobody ever killed by pollution. In practice this is not always possible. So what risk factor is acceptable ? Is it acceptable to average 3 deaths a year ? If you're a home crochet business nobody would say yes, if you're a mining conglomerate that's considered doing well ! Society doesn't see those deaths as equal, it should but it doesn't, and the EPA has to regulate based on laws that flow from that society. That number allows us to say whether a death toll is acceptable or not. Mining industries add billions, even if you factor in an 8 million dollar per person times three cost to society from deaths - society is still getting massive financial benefit from having mines. Hence they are allowed. The home crochet business probably doesn't make 8 million in it's entire existence, let alone add that in value to the economy - costing us 24-million a year on average... doesn't work there.
I am not philosophically in favor of how the number is used (as far as I'm concerned - we should legally force all businesses to average 0 deaths a year. Maybe once a decade something truly unpredictable may happen - and even those should be thoroughly investigated - it would mean however that mines make a few million in profit, not billions), but if you're going to comment on it you should at least understand how it's used.
>Except historical precedent. Even low-tech humans have adapted to a huge range of climates. Think Inuit living on the edge of Baffin Bay, and Bedouins living in the deserts of Sudan.
Except that doesn't prove what you think it does. You're conflating regional climate with global climate. Those are all part of the SAME global climate: a temperate interglacial period. They are merely the minor variations within the average. More-over this was never about whether the SPECIES would survive (unlikely) but about whether our industrial civilization can survive - definitely not.
>. Is that not an example of technology providing us with food? You want to build nuclear green houses to feed 7 billion people with ? You do REALIZE that this would cost about a hundred billion times more than even the least economic green energy solutions would right ? Why exactly do you want to go for the expensive, hard-to-maintain and impossible to guarantee option ? Just because it would be somebody else's problem ?
Your claim about arable land is simple false. Farmiing will get a lot less effective when we're dealing with massive flooding, unpredictable seasons, frequent extreme weather and a massive increase in pests (one side effect of global warming is that insects breed faster and grow bigger - faster breeding also means faster adaptation so pesticides get less effective).
>. But your dire predictions of possible human extinction are right out I didn't make any predictions at all. I merely stated the facts: we evolved in a specific global climate. In all of earth history only 3 or 4 species have EVER survived a significant change in global climate and we'd be arrogant to assume we would be one of those (especially since nearly all of them were marine species - which is relatively sheltered). Now I don't think we're likely to go extinct from this - I do know that it's ALREADY costing us billions a year in damages, which will get a lot worse, that it's already killing people - and will kill millions, perhaps billions, more. Right now we should base our policies on the likely outcomes - extinction levels would be an edge-case, they just aren't impossible. Be sure though - we WILL go extinct on earth. EVERYTHING does and we will NOT be an exception. It's not an if but a how and when. Our only chance to avoid full extinction is to be living on more than one planet before that happens. One thing the history of this planet makes clear is - extinction is a guarantee. 97% of all species that ever evolved are extinct.
Life yes. Humans ? No. There is no evidence of that. We've only EVER existed in a temperate interglacial climate era. Switches in climate are a lot quicker than you think - the average time is a few hundred thousand years, which is NOTHING compared to the age of the earth.
The fact is - even if WE could adapt we'd STILL lose billions - because what we can't do is adapt everything ELSE we depend on just as quickly. The history of the earth is very clear about that - large climate shifts ALWAYS coincide with mass extinction events. Life is resilient, even bloody minded, it's survived everything the universe (quite literally sometimes) could throw at it, but species - species are not.
The average lifetime to a species is 10 million years, humans are ALREADY there.
And don't assume our technology would save us, it's absolute ignorant arrogance to assume we're the first species to achieve this level of technology. The only thing we have any evidence for is that if there were previous species that achieved similar intelligence they didn't make it to the building-satelites point, but that's just a few decades - an evolutionary blink of an eye, it's meaningless. Scientists like Jack Cohen will tell you that if we were wiped out tomorrow it's quite likely that in ten million years those satelites will be the ONLY evidence we were ever here - in a billion years... it's almost a guarantee. The fossil record almost certainly doesn't include more than 1% of the species that have actually existed - any of them could have taken intelligence that one tiny step we took beyond our peers - and become self referrential... and it's likely that SEVERAL did... and left not a shred of evidence. Of course, it's entirely possible we ARE the first - but we have no evidence for THAT either and statistically, it's the least likely idea since some stone age ancestors of ours figured the world was made by a giant sky fairy and, much like their crazy notion, it's based on arrogant self importance: they believed that because it meant the world was made for them... we believe we're the first to do what we've done, because it would make us special.
Erpingham wrong. But since your replying to things I didn't say. And we have growing evidence of snowball earth : an ice age where the polar caps actually reached the equator and the oceans froze. There may have been no liquid water anywhere on earth for almost a hundred thousand years (which would explain the cambrian mass extinction ). Compared to what an actual non interglacial climate looks like nothing out there today is more than minor statistical variance. But even so how big a population can your little example support? Just because a small number of people can adapt to an extreme case doesn't mean that case can support humanity. Killing billions isn't a good outcome. And cold is easier to adapt to than heat. Adding energy to a system or preserving more is an easy engineering problem to solve. Blankets solve it. Getting rid of excess energy is much harder.
There is a huge difference between every climate that exists and every climate that has existed or could exist. All of those examples occurred within a temperate climate age. They seem extreme to our eyes but by earth standards they are just the edges of a very narrow band out of a massive possible one. Good luck having an industrial society on snowball earth (any society at all is unlikely). For that matter good luck surviving in the carboniferous with insects as big as emus around.
Reading "some people" and responding as if I had said "everybody" is a flagrant strawman. I'm sure there are some people with sensible reasons for voting republican. David Koch for example votes republican for the perfectly sensible reason that it saves him personally from paying taxes. Using a flagrant and blatantly obvious strawman because you can't take a mild tease about a group you identify with... now THAT is truly intellectually weak.
Slashdot Mirror
To answer your question - because it's more dangerous. A recent study compared incidences of side effects and injuries between those who got the usual schedule and children who had delayed or spread-out schedules - and found 80% more injuries in the latter group. Spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risks. They are extremely minor risks, but when spread out - they become much more significant.
Furthermore it increases the risk of actually getting one of the diseases the vaccines are meant to protect against by a huge margin as the delay period extends how long you are vulnerable before being vaccinated.
Those laws do not, in fact, exist. What DOES exist is laws that say if you think your child was injured by a vaccine and the injury is anywhere on a long list of things which we know MIGHT happen, even if they only happen on a one in a billion cases - you don't have to prove your claim, you get paid. No need for lawyers, no need for expensive court cases, no need to deal with the incredible scientific complexity of actually proving causality - you win, guilt by the vaccine producer is ASSUMED.
The reason you get paid from a big fund is so that the vaccine producers can actually afford to pay these "guilty with no chance to prove innocence" claims against them. The reason the claimants get these "assumption that the other guy is guilty" benefits is because vaccines are often mandatory - and like all medicine they do have risks. Those risks may be incredibly minor but they exist and may hit some people - so those people are simply given the benefit of the doubt.
Linus used to say "Don't make backups, just stick your stuff on an FTP server and let the world copy it"... I don't think he meant that it was supposed to happen without your consent or knowledge however.
Actually yes. A few years ago a number of gun runners in South Africa we're caught smuggling weapons to the LRA. They defended their actions not by saying "we are greedy gunrunners happy to supply child soldiers" but by saying "we are christians who armed fellow christians in a war against evil Muslims". They got huge public sympathy and people were furious when the fortunately secular court system found them guilty of violation of the countries constitutional prohibition against trading arms to human rights violaters.
Where one is found the other is sure to follow.
See the post below by the beekeeper's son. A beekeeper considers colony death an incredibly rare event. Many retire with most of their first colonies still alive..
As we speak Budhists are murdering Muslims on at least 2 islands in a vast religiously driven ethnic cleansing war that's been going on for over a year now.
You do actually have examples of ALL the above murdering every OTHER of the above for exactly that reason - in fact the single deadliest religious terrorist group on the planet is the Christian Lord's Resistance Army. Islamic extermists could take lessons - those guys kill more people in a month than all Islamic groups combined have managed in a decade !
You just don't HEAR about the others very much, because they don't make the news, because the places where they happen don't have oil.
The vast majority of atheists in America, particularly those who live in conservative areas report hiding their beliefs from neighbours (often claiming to be agnostic) for fear of discrimination and reprisal.
It would appear that even in the US of A atheists feel legitimately scared of religious people who are decidedly NOT Muslims. 3 Atheist murders in a short period is distressing but hardly above average, it COULD be just a random statistically clump which has no deeper meaning. There is nothing to suggest that this happens more frequently there than among Christians in the USA.
In fact, there isn't even any proof yet that this particular person's murder (or any of them) were even related to their writings - no trials yet, no evidence or motives known. The country is in a state of significant civil upheaval where murders are a frequent ocurrence. That these three victims happen to be atheist may be entirely unrelated to their deaths.
A good atheist should not form opinions before evidence is available and ought to know about statistical clumping fallacies and selective reporting.
Of course it's also possible that these WERE religiously motivated murders - we don't have enough evidence ot judge yet, we don't EVEN have a signficant enough statistical clump to consider it an unlikely coincidence
To get a valid sample you must EXCLUDE the data that originally drew your attention from your data-set, then make a prediction of what would happen if there was a NON-random event, and only if that prediction holds can you rule out randomness. So we now suspect that atheist bloggers may be getting targeted for their writings. We can predict that more deaths will follow, in quick sucession. If another happens -then we can NOT say "4 deaths now" - we say 1 death matching the prediction, if another 3 happen in a reasonable timeframe THEN you've got something MORE than mere coincidence.
Oh - and Muslim extermists are hardly the most violent religious lot around. That title is actually held by a Christian group. The Lords Resistance Army kills about as many people every month as all the Islamic terrorists in the world combined do in a decade - and that was in the decade that include 9/11, in a typical decade it's about a 5th of what the LRA does monthly.
The reason you don't HEAR about the LRA murders is because they don't happen where there is oil or, indeed, any resource of importance to America. They just happen somewhere in Africa, which as far as America is concerned is basically this big country full of children with distended bellies where everybody dies by age 10 anyway.
Hercules doesn't really offer much. That other middle-eastern miracle worker son-of-god guy is promissing an afterlife, which is quite an appealing offer but Kwankwaka the goat-headed god of mice in Papa New Guinea is offering pigs and all the wheat I can carry ! Bacon and Beer man ! Bacon and Beer !
The normal lifespan of a bee colony is measured in decades or in rare cases even centuries.
Well I was mocking the party leadership not (all of) it's voters.
For a start they recognised the previously denied freedom of homosexual people to get married to the partner of their choosing.
The obsurificationd service, integrated in systemd which locates any log entries related to the error you want to resolve in the binary log upon access - then translates them via google translate several times into random languages and back into English before presenting them.
>It is curious to observe the pro government mania taking place at this time, the time of the biggest economic downturn pretty much in history of the USA
Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
> the downturn caused by the government power grab and destruction of individual freedoms.
This government has less power than the previous one, and has restored some of the freedoms the last one took - and protected freedoms all previous governments have denied. None of which is actually relevant since the only government actions that preceded the recession were DEREGULATION - that is to say, the exact OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. Like the depression, this recession was caused by reckless and outright fraudulent bankers.
Where it gets really ironic is that this issue is essentially unrelated to the economy in it's entirety. You can't have a free market around a natural monopoly - it's literally physically impossible.
>Naturally the right wing opposes it.
Isn't that the Republican moto ? "America has seen great progress over the past 75 years, and we have been the opposition to all of it."
Plenty of dogs will consistently catch a ball out of the air - you want to tell me they don't know where it's going to land ?
Children catch balls many years before we teach them the maths needed to calculate their curves.
We have an instinctive ability to do that math, an intuitive knack for maths and physics which is quite powerful. If we could apply it to school maths hardly anybody would ever fail.
The trouble is, it's also imperfect, most people intuitively believe that heavier objects fall faster for example, which we know isn't actually true. Studies have found that when you give people multiple-choice (basic) physics questions where on some questions there is a scientifically correct answer AND an "intiuitive" answer, then most people get the science one wrong on those -even if they got the right answer where no intuitive one was provided, and even physics professors take significantly longer to answer the questions where there is an intuitive but wrong answer provided - as they have to force their brains to override their intuition and apply what they know.
With what we know about how human brains intuitively work with basic physics - claiming that dogs cannot have similar abilities is an extremely extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence from you.
In their defense, that number is probably the most accurately calculated average economic contribution per individual ever done. Nobody else cared enough to do the math.
It is, also, a low-balled figure - since it doesn't include any kind of compensation for the emotional losses to families and excludes even fairly common edge-cases like children ending up in foster care if they have no living relatives anymore.
Now it's very hard to put a number on sadness, courts have systems for doing so but they are controversial at best, people always declare them either too high or too low. That's exactly why the EPA figure doesn't try to.
What it does do is allow them to put a floor-price on human lives risked and regulate at least somewhat sensibly - which is all it's meant to do. In a perfect world the acceptable death toll for any industry is always 0. Nobody ever killed in an industrial accident, nobody ever killed by pollution. In practice this is not always possible. So what risk factor is acceptable ?
Is it acceptable to average 3 deaths a year ? If you're a home crochet business nobody would say yes, if you're a mining conglomerate that's considered doing well !
Society doesn't see those deaths as equal, it should but it doesn't, and the EPA has to regulate based on laws that flow from that society. That number allows us to say whether a death toll is acceptable or not.
Mining industries add billions, even if you factor in an 8 million dollar per person times three cost to society from deaths - society is still getting massive financial benefit from having mines. Hence they are allowed. The home crochet business probably doesn't make 8 million in it's entire existence, let alone add that in value to the economy - costing us 24-million a year on average... doesn't work there.
I am not philosophically in favor of how the number is used (as far as I'm concerned - we should legally force all businesses to average 0 deaths a year. Maybe once a decade something truly unpredictable may happen - and even those should be thoroughly investigated - it would mean however that mines make a few million in profit, not billions), but if you're going to comment on it you should at least understand how it's used.
I didn't get defensive at all. I pointed out your fallacy. I don't feel the need to defend things I didn't say.
>Except historical precedent. Even low-tech humans have adapted to a huge range of climates. Think Inuit living on the edge of Baffin Bay, and Bedouins living in the deserts of Sudan.
Except that doesn't prove what you think it does. You're conflating regional climate with global climate.
Those are all part of the SAME global climate: a temperate interglacial period. They are merely the minor variations within the average.
More-over this was never about whether the SPECIES would survive (unlikely) but about whether our industrial civilization can survive - definitely not.
>. Is that not an example of technology providing us with food?
You want to build nuclear green houses to feed 7 billion people with ? You do REALIZE that this would cost about a hundred billion times more than even the least economic green energy solutions would right ?
Why exactly do you want to go for the expensive, hard-to-maintain and impossible to guarantee option ? Just because it would be somebody else's problem ?
Your claim about arable land is simple false. Farmiing will get a lot less effective when we're dealing with massive flooding, unpredictable seasons, frequent extreme weather and a massive increase in pests (one side effect of global warming is that insects breed faster and grow bigger - faster breeding also means faster adaptation so pesticides get less effective).
>. But your dire predictions of possible human extinction are right out
I didn't make any predictions at all. I merely stated the facts: we evolved in a specific global climate. In all of earth history only 3 or 4 species have EVER survived a significant change in global climate and we'd be arrogant to assume we would be one of those (especially since nearly all of them were marine species - which is relatively sheltered).
Now I don't think we're likely to go extinct from this - I do know that it's ALREADY costing us billions a year in damages, which will get a lot worse, that it's already killing people - and will kill millions, perhaps billions, more.
Right now we should base our policies on the likely outcomes - extinction levels would be an edge-case, they just aren't impossible.
Be sure though - we WILL go extinct on earth. EVERYTHING does and we will NOT be an exception. It's not an if but a how and when. Our only chance to avoid full extinction is to be living on more than one planet before that happens.
One thing the history of this planet makes clear is - extinction is a guarantee. 97% of all species that ever evolved are extinct.
So wait... you're declaring war on American police departments ?
Life yes. Humans ? No. There is no evidence of that. We've only EVER existed in a temperate interglacial climate era.
Switches in climate are a lot quicker than you think - the average time is a few hundred thousand years, which is NOTHING compared to the age of the earth.
The fact is - even if WE could adapt we'd STILL lose billions - because what we can't do is adapt everything ELSE we depend on just as quickly. The history of the earth is very clear about that - large climate shifts ALWAYS coincide with mass extinction events.
Life is resilient, even bloody minded, it's survived everything the universe (quite literally sometimes) could throw at it, but species - species are not.
The average lifetime to a species is 10 million years, humans are ALREADY there.
And don't assume our technology would save us, it's absolute ignorant arrogance to assume we're the first species to achieve this level of technology. The only thing we have any evidence for is that if there were previous species that achieved similar intelligence they didn't make it to the building-satelites point, but that's just a few decades - an evolutionary blink of an eye, it's meaningless.
Scientists like Jack Cohen will tell you that if we were wiped out tomorrow it's quite likely that in ten million years those satelites will be the ONLY evidence we were ever here - in a billion years... it's almost a guarantee.
The fossil record almost certainly doesn't include more than 1% of the species that have actually existed - any of them could have taken intelligence that one tiny step we took beyond our peers - and become self referrential... and it's likely that SEVERAL did... and left not a shred of evidence.
Of course, it's entirely possible we ARE the first - but we have no evidence for THAT either and statistically, it's the least likely idea since some stone age ancestors of ours figured the world was made by a giant sky fairy and, much like their crazy notion, it's based on arrogant self importance: they believed that because it meant the world was made for them... we believe we're the first to do what we've done, because it would make us special.
We probably aren't.
Brown-skinned people who talk funny.
Isn't that the official American definition ?
Erpingham wrong. But since your replying to things I didn't say. And we have growing evidence of snowball earth : an ice age where the polar caps actually reached the equator and the oceans froze. There may have been no liquid water anywhere on earth for almost a hundred thousand years (which would explain the cambrian mass extinction ). Compared to what an actual non interglacial climate looks like nothing out there today is more than minor statistical variance. But even so how big a population can your little example support? Just because a small number of people can adapt to an extreme case doesn't mean that case can support humanity. Killing billions isn't a good outcome. And cold is easier to adapt to than heat. Adding energy to a system or preserving more is an easy engineering problem to solve. Blankets solve it. Getting rid of excess energy is much harder.
There is a huge difference between every climate that exists and every climate that has existed or could exist. All of those examples occurred within a temperate climate age. They seem extreme to our eyes but by earth standards they are just the edges of a very narrow band out of a massive possible one. Good luck having an industrial society on snowball earth (any society at all is unlikely). For that matter good luck surviving in the carboniferous with insects as big as emus around.
Reading "some people" and responding as if I had said "everybody" is a flagrant strawman. I'm sure there are some people with sensible reasons for voting republican. David Koch for example votes republican for the perfectly sensible reason that it saves him personally from paying taxes.
Using a flagrant and blatantly obvious strawman because you can't take a mild tease about a group you identify with... now THAT is truly intellectually weak.