"Hospital staff gave the wrong treatment to the wrong patient on almost 25,000 occasions last year, leading to deaths, serious injury and long-term harm, official figures show. Errors in identifying patients led to at least 500 a week getting the wrong operation the wrong drugs or diagnostic tests, the National Patient Safety Agency said.
No breakdown of the figures was available yesterday to show how many had died or been seriously harmed and how many escaped injury. The agency admitted the total could be much higher because many incidents went unreported."
Here in Australia in the public system it's a pretty regular occurrence as well.
There seems to be quite a few people in the US at the moment who think Government run healthcare is some sort of magical kingdom where all problems are solved and everyone can let out a sigh of relief and never have to worry about getting sick again. They would be wrong. Now there's good and bad points to both public and private and some of the cheerleaders in the US need to get educated into just what they are getting themselves into. As there are some absolutely *terrible* public systems around and the US could easily wind up having one of the worst as centralised planning of public health care for a country of 30 million is a *hell* of a lot different than centrally planning for a country of 300 million.
We have comprehensive free public care here in Australia but also a thriving private industry and if government run health is as perfect as so many claim and private so inefficient and awful then surely the private hospitals here would have gone out of business years ago. Especially since the government caps the amount they are allowed to charge their customers *and* their customers ALSO have to pay for public that they don't use as well (small tax breaks but nowhere near 100%)...
"An ultra-facist, ultra controlling government that..."
You're wrong as it was an ultra socialist government based 100% on the Soviet Communist party and as Orwell believed (and had personal experience with in Spain) would be the logical outcome of the English left wing "intelligentsias" (who he had absolutely no love for) writings and beliefs of the day.
Orwell himself became a Democratic Socialist due to the extreme levels of poverty and wealth disparity he had seen when he went on the road disguised as a vagabond to research his book "A Road to Wigan Pier". BUT he was under no illusion of what the extreme form of socialism (as advocated by many many people on the left at the time) would become should it be implemented, which is why he wrote two books on the subject and hundreds of letters, reviews and essays against not only the Fascists but also Communists and the useful idiots in the academic left wing who fawned over the Russian style of Socialism rather than wanting to maintain a democracy that had Socialist tendencies as Orwell advocated for.
The more you know.
P.S I've noticed that as a country politically moves to the right the "baddies" in old fiction suddenly become left wing and when a country moves to the left the "baddies" in the same books suddenly become right wing, I'm not sure if that's a problem or not (outside of the cognitive dissonance it displays).
Someone above states emphatically that *no one* will accept this invasion of their privacy and is modded to +5 and here you are at +4 stating emphatically that everyone should *want* to have the very cornerstone of 1984 in our homes.
And if the "fat welfare whore" is worth more than the "anti-social venomous single white middle class maxed out credit card internet nerd" to the cable companies that they'll listen to her and not you via Nielson boxes why would that change if they put cameras into your TV? They have already told you clearly that you're not worth anything to them by not allowing you to get a Neilson box.
Perhaps you should get the message rather than chasing after them like a puppy who keeps getting booted in the ribs?
Not to mention it's pretty pathetic..."Oh if I let them stick cameras in my home then they might put on more SCI FI!"...perhaps you should get out more?
It's funny, the hanger ons to the scientific community have worked *so hard* to diminish the idea of god in the common man and replace it with their utopian ideal of a purely "science" based society - where "science is anything that furthers their ideal no matter how shakey or psuedo.
And replace it they have, with the outcome being lists like these where the average person just replaces the word "god" with "evolution" and "nature" but doesn't replace the belief system behind it (some invisible force consciously "designing" the world).
What absolute garbage, western population is controlling itself.
In fact most western countries are opening up their borders to deal with it.
The answer to population growth is wealth not tyranny. Wealthy people in a wealthy society don't feel the need to have four or five children on the basis that one or two of them will likely die before they grow up. Because in wealthy societies children have very high chances of surviving infancy.
The only thing I hear when I hear westerners espousing forced birth control in western countries is "I am an authoritarian and you will bow down to the state"
Re:The rest of the world is making fun of America
on
The Outing of Pranknet
·
· Score: 1
All western societies are based upon implicit trust.
99.99999% of the time it's fine to trust strangers, if you're suggesting we should reorganise to a society where nobody trusts anybody then have fun living in a cave.
The rest of us will continue living in our free, prosperous and trusting societies and will continue to find and punish the parasites who consciously take that trust and use it to abuse decent folk among us for their own pathetic ends.
There used to be ways and means of dealing with humans who exhibited this sort of destructive uncivilised behaviour.
If they were lucky they'd just be Shanghai'd, if they were unlucky they would be lynched and if they really pissed a community off they'd be tarred and feathered.
It's fortunate for the likes of these individuals that western society has bound itself so tight with law and regulation that it's now unable to deter the parasitic members with any sort of finality.
"Markle pulled the Arby's prank in tandem with Shawn Powell, a 24-year-old felon who also happens to be a convicted sex offender (Powell's victim was an eight-year-old female relative)."
It looks more like a couple of child rapists fronting as a "prank" group than anything else, I bet there's far more to this story and I bet it's going to get very ugly once full investigations take place.
Sometimes it really seems that people have just replaced the word "god" with "evolution" and "nature" around here.
Evolution isn't a physical being that controls anything, it's not sentient and doesn't sit in its throne in the sky inserting genes into humans to make us behave the way it wants. Please stop anthropomorphizing a scientific theory.
Incest only became a significant taboo in recent human history and many animals have incestuous relations when there's no better alternative.
I just read the definition of "Antisocial Disorder" and I have known at least a dozen people who fit three or more points in the "criteria", hell at some stage *I* probably did. One or two have had minor legal problems but for the most part they get on. The single thread that joins all the people who spring to mind is that *all* of them grew up without a father figure and they never properly got past adolescence. Which of course I see is not even touched on in the research into the area (rather typical for psychiatry - never can a father be beneficial and necessary to a boy, only detrimental suggests the rabid ideology that all to often plagues that area of "study").
Anyway the symptoms are so broad that anybody at all could be painted as having "Antisocial Disorder" and if "we" (I assume you mean "normal" people lol) took any adverse action towards individuals simply based on the fitting the definition of it then I would say that it is society that is psychopathic.
The average persons paycheck sure as hell hasn't gone up 25% in the last nine years so you're still wrong despite your bizarre mental gymnastics to try and "prove" otherwise.
Also please attempt (using the same distorted "logic" I hope) to explain to me how requiring two people to work white collar jobs to sustain the lifestyle that my parents sustained with a single person working a 9-5 blue collar job proves that I am "wealthier" than my parents were in the 60's, '70s and 80's.
You're living in an absolute delusion aren't you.
Not to mention I strongly suspect you pulled those numbers straight out of your arse to suit your "argument".
Look at lead for an even better example what a wonderful technology! Lead pipes, and lead based paint! WOW!
Why it's a harmless metal, why not use it to carry drinking water.
Or arsenic based sheep dips that have created poisoned dip sites that now have to tracked by the government to make sure nobody accidentally grows food around them.
I wonder if in the 1980s the parent would have blindly supported the never thought of before "technological" innovation of feeding mashed up sheep carcasses to cows.
No I think you'll find that machinery (specifically the tractor, combine, header and truck) is the reason that it doesn't take 80% of the population to work the land anymore. Everything else you list gives insignificant increases in output by comparison.
My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have.
Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it.
I should remember I dun know nuthing about that that there food production like you edumacated city slickers do.
Organic farming is clearly defined if you (in your infinite knowledge of all thing agriculture) cared to look it up.
When I was about 12 I was helping my uncle drench sheep - basically giving them a chemical shower. The chemical we were using caused me and my cousin to both have explosive diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea the instant we caught a decent whiff of the overspray. "You'll get used to it" was my uncles advice to us.
There's areas on farms where sheep dips stood that are now officially poisoned ground that food can never be grown in due to the arsenic levels in the soil, these old dip sites are tracked by the government where known.
But yeah, all the chemicals being sprayed all over your food are completely harmless, so to are the growth hormones and antibiotics your eating every day.
I bet you would have said the same thing about lead pipes 40 years ago.
It's you who wallow in ignorance I'm sorry. Have you even ever stepped foot out of the city?
I really hope that was a joke of a question by the way or the fact that you're currently at +4 means ignorance abounds on this site regarding agriculture.
No "we" didn't know this already because you're talking absolute crap.
In order to be organically certified in Australia farmers make available their farms for regular long and arduous inspections, are subject to ruthless record keeping requirements and strict farming practices.
But keep telling yourself that the way food was grown for...well since the start of civilisation is a "gimmick" and the factory farms owned by multibillion dollar corps that slather thousands of litres of deadly chemicals all over their land, pump their animals full of antibiotics and hormones and other lovely practices (such as feeding omivores mashed up carcasses) in order to increase production and profit margins by 5% is the natural and "better" state of things.
Let us never forget that it was the UK farming industry under the "watchful eye" of the British Government that brought the world BSE by convincing themselves that it was fine and dandy to feed omnivores mashed up sheep, pig and chicken carcasses.
The UK agricultural sector has exactly 0 credibility in the world.
Umm "cow shit" is just mushed up grass and water. If you saw what goes on on a farm and what's put in and on your food you'd sing a vastly different tune technophile.
The average high production farm looks more like a highly toxic chemical factory than anything else these days. Huge piles of super phosphate, sheds full of 44 gallon drums of insecticides, vaccines and drenches all marked with skull and cross bones due to their toxicity to humans.
I come from a long line of farmers and have spent a lot of time on farms big and small, I really don't think city people are aware of what's happening to their food at every stage of the process. There's still a romantisised notion in peoples minds that farming is generally still done like it used to be. This is still true in small pockets but if you buy your food in a supermarket, you aren't buying small farm produce.
My biggest concern right now is feedlot beef, I have a cousin who works in an abattoir and he's gone right off eating beef that's been raised in feedlots due to what he sees when he cuts them (mongoloid internal organs for a starters and quite a bit of disease). Not to mention I have a natural aversion to eating "meat product" grown in a factory part owned by the Mitsubishi Corporation.
It's only the last 15 years that the factory farm has really taken off, so we're the first generation to really bear the brunt of it. Who knows what the sort of problems we're going to be dealing with in 20 or 30 years.
It's a worry but there are ways around it if you care. For example my family all combined and bought a whole grass fed cow off a small old school farm outside of the city here and had it butchered by the local butcher. It ended up costing $6 a kilo and we each got 6 months worth of meat. And good god it tastes good, I can never go back to supermarket (or most butchered meat) again.
In the days when free market capitalism wasn't a dirty word and huge corporations didn't think they had a birth right to cashflow and generally worked hard to make money - 10 or 20 cents profit per CD would have still been seen as profit and worth working for.
Must be nice to have so much money that they can refuse to service customers because it requires some work.
"On October 3, 2008, Smith was one of six Texan Republican Congressman to vote for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program[6].
Despite his support of the bill, he also was a proponent of the 2009 Tea Party protests which condemned any bailouts, and even sent rallies in his district a letter which encouraged them "to protest the massive expansion in the size and scope of government currently underway". [7]"
I bet the fork tongued viper sleeps like a baby on his mountains of corrupt cash at night as well.
There simply must be revolution in western governance.
What's peak oil got to do with placing huge taxes on electricity generated by burning coal? Your fallback argument is a fallacy.
We've got about 200 years worth of coal left to power half the world here in Australia alone.
We've also got that much uranium but noone seems to want it, the world just loves us for our coal. It seems ironic that the environmental movement probably has made a bigger contribution to global warming than anyone when they forced the end of the nuclear power movement 30 years ago. And even now they rather keep coal plants in business than accept the only rational solution to the problem they say is going to cause the end of humanity if we don't stop using coal.
Who's long and short term survival? Yours specifically or the entire human races?
People live in depths of Siberia.
People live in the Sahara.
The human race isn't going anywhere unless the entire planet turns into a molten ball of magma and even then someone would probably figure out a way of living with it. We're a pretty adaptive bunch see.
Now there'll probably be a reduction in the population of the planet, but in reality it will be offset by the new farming prospects opened up in the colder areas. Like now it's possible to grow wheat in areas around my region that were never able to grow wheat before about 1998 due to the long bitter winters.
And *us* specifically, we will barely see the consequences of it in our lifetimes which is something that's always conveniently forgotten by doomsayers. I think many global warming advocates quietly enjoy the implicit assumption that they've created in the publics mind that we're in some sort of hollywood movie where the earth is about to be wiped out in the next five to ten years.
Rational people should openly reject such lunacy as it will create a public backlash when nothing "bad" happens in that timeframe.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I don't know if you're being facetious but that already happens on a large scale in (at least) the English and Australian public health systems:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-gives-wrong-treatment-to-500-hospital-patients-a-week-456782.html
"Hospital staff gave the wrong treatment to the wrong patient on almost 25,000 occasions last year, leading to deaths, serious injury and long-term harm, official figures show. Errors in identifying patients led to at least 500 a week getting the wrong operation the wrong drugs or diagnostic tests, the National Patient Safety Agency said.
No breakdown of the figures was available yesterday to show how many had died or been seriously harmed and how many escaped injury. The agency admitted the total could be much higher because many incidents went unreported."
Here in Australia in the public system it's a pretty regular occurrence as well.
There seems to be quite a few people in the US at the moment who think Government run healthcare is some sort of magical kingdom where all problems are solved and everyone can let out a sigh of relief and never have to worry about getting sick again. They would be wrong. Now there's good and bad points to both public and private and some of the cheerleaders in the US need to get educated into just what they are getting themselves into. As there are some absolutely *terrible* public systems around and the US could easily wind up having one of the worst as centralised planning of public health care for a country of 30 million is a *hell* of a lot different than centrally planning for a country of 300 million.
We have comprehensive free public care here in Australia but also a thriving private industry and if government run health is as perfect as so many claim and private so inefficient and awful then surely the private hospitals here would have gone out of business years ago. Especially since the government caps the amount they are allowed to charge their customers *and* their customers ALSO have to pay for public that they don't use as well (small tax breaks but nowhere near 100%)...
"An ultra-facist, ultra controlling government that..."
You're wrong as it was an ultra socialist government based 100% on the Soviet Communist party and as Orwell believed (and had personal experience with in Spain) would be the logical outcome of the English left wing "intelligentsias" (who he had absolutely no love for) writings and beliefs of the day.
Orwell himself became a Democratic Socialist due to the extreme levels of poverty and wealth disparity he had seen when he went on the road disguised as a vagabond to research his book "A Road to Wigan Pier". BUT he was under no illusion of what the extreme form of socialism (as advocated by many many people on the left at the time) would become should it be implemented, which is why he wrote two books on the subject and hundreds of letters, reviews and essays against not only the Fascists but also Communists and the useful idiots in the academic left wing who fawned over the Russian style of Socialism rather than wanting to maintain a democracy that had Socialist tendencies as Orwell advocated for.
The more you know.
P.S I've noticed that as a country politically moves to the right the "baddies" in old fiction suddenly become left wing and when a country moves to the left the "baddies" in the same books suddenly become right wing, I'm not sure if that's a problem or not (outside of the cognitive dissonance it displays).
How funny,
Someone above states emphatically that *no one* will accept this invasion of their privacy and is modded to +5 and here you are at +4 stating emphatically that everyone should *want* to have the very cornerstone of 1984 in our homes.
And if the "fat welfare whore" is worth more than the "anti-social venomous single white middle class maxed out credit card internet nerd" to the cable companies that they'll listen to her and not you via Nielson boxes why would that change if they put cameras into your TV? They have already told you clearly that you're not worth anything to them by not allowing you to get a Neilson box.
Perhaps you should get the message rather than chasing after them like a puppy who keeps getting booted in the ribs?
Not to mention it's pretty pathetic..."Oh if I let them stick cameras in my home then they might put on more SCI FI!"...perhaps you should get out more?
It's funny, the hanger ons to the scientific community have worked *so hard* to diminish the idea of god in the common man and replace it with their utopian ideal of a purely "science" based society - where "science is anything that furthers their ideal no matter how shakey or psuedo.
And replace it they have, with the outcome being lists like these where the average person just replaces the word "god" with "evolution" and "nature" but doesn't replace the belief system behind it (some invisible force consciously "designing" the world).
Unintended consequences for the win.
What absolute garbage, western population is controlling itself.
In fact most western countries are opening up their borders to deal with it.
The answer to population growth is wealth not tyranny. Wealthy people in a wealthy society don't feel the need to have four or five children on the basis that one or two of them will likely die before they grow up. Because in wealthy societies children have very high chances of surviving infancy.
The only thing I hear when I hear westerners espousing forced birth control in western countries is "I am an authoritarian and you will bow down to the state"
All western societies are based upon implicit trust.
99.99999% of the time it's fine to trust strangers, if you're suggesting we should reorganise to a society where nobody trusts anybody then have fun living in a cave.
The rest of us will continue living in our free, prosperous and trusting societies and will continue to find and punish the parasites who consciously take that trust and use it to abuse decent folk among us for their own pathetic ends.
There used to be ways and means of dealing with humans who exhibited this sort of destructive uncivilised behaviour.
If they were lucky they'd just be Shanghai'd, if they were unlucky they would be lynched and if they really pissed a community off they'd be tarred and feathered.
It's fortunate for the likes of these individuals that western society has bound itself so tight with law and regulation that it's now unable to deter the parasitic members with any sort of finality.
Thanks for displaying the height of masturbatory "nerd" hubris that so infects a large percentage of people on tech sites.
I'm sure that there is no area in your life that you would fall for one of these intricate scams.
You are a god amongst men and we pathetic humans bow down to you "tuxracer".
Birds of a feather indeed.
From the same link:
"Markle pulled the Arby's prank in tandem with Shawn Powell, a 24-year-old felon who also happens to be a convicted sex offender (Powell's victim was an eight-year-old female relative)."
It looks more like a couple of child rapists fronting as a "prank" group than anything else, I bet there's far more to this story and I bet it's going to get very ugly once full investigations take place.
Evolutions "reaction"??
Sometimes it really seems that people have just replaced the word "god" with "evolution" and "nature" around here.
Evolution isn't a physical being that controls anything, it's not sentient and doesn't sit in its throne in the sky inserting genes into humans to make us behave the way it wants. Please stop anthropomorphizing a scientific theory.
Incest only became a significant taboo in recent human history and many animals have incestuous relations when there's no better alternative.
How ridiculous.
I just read the definition of "Antisocial Disorder" and I have known at least a dozen people who fit three or more points in the "criteria", hell at some stage *I* probably did. One or two have had minor legal problems but for the most part they get on. The single thread that joins all the people who spring to mind is that *all* of them grew up without a father figure and they never properly got past adolescence. Which of course I see is not even touched on in the research into the area (rather typical for psychiatry - never can a father be beneficial and necessary to a boy, only detrimental suggests the rabid ideology that all to often plagues that area of "study").
Anyway the symptoms are so broad that anybody at all could be painted as having "Antisocial Disorder" and if "we" (I assume you mean "normal" people lol) took any adverse action towards individuals simply based on the fitting the definition of it then I would say that it is society that is psychopathic.
The average persons paycheck sure as hell hasn't gone up 25% in the last nine years so you're still wrong despite your bizarre mental gymnastics to try and "prove" otherwise.
Also please attempt (using the same distorted "logic" I hope) to explain to me how requiring two people to work white collar jobs to sustain the lifestyle that my parents sustained with a single person working a 9-5 blue collar job proves that I am "wealthier" than my parents were in the 60's, '70s and 80's.
You're living in an absolute delusion aren't you.
Not to mention I strongly suspect you pulled those numbers straight out of your arse to suit your "argument".
Look at lead for an even better example what a wonderful technology! Lead pipes, and lead based paint! WOW!
Why it's a harmless metal, why not use it to carry drinking water.
Or arsenic based sheep dips that have created poisoned dip sites that now have to tracked by the government to make sure nobody accidentally grows food around them.
I wonder if in the 1980s the parent would have blindly supported the never thought of before "technological" innovation of feeding mashed up sheep carcasses to cows.
No I think you'll find that machinery (specifically the tractor, combine, header and truck) is the reason that it doesn't take 80% of the population to work the land anymore. Everything else you list gives insignificant increases in output by comparison.
My uncles are limited in the amount of land that they can work on their farms by the size of the tractors and machinery they have.
Food preservation techniques came about in about 1850 btw, but don't worry about it.
I should remember I dun know nuthing about that that there food production like you edumacated city slickers do.
Organic farming is clearly defined if you (in your infinite knowledge of all thing agriculture) cared to look it up.
When I was about 12 I was helping my uncle drench sheep - basically giving them a chemical shower. The chemical we were using caused me and my cousin to both have explosive diarrhea, stomach cramps and nausea the instant we caught a decent whiff of the overspray. "You'll get used to it" was my uncles advice to us.
There's areas on farms where sheep dips stood that are now officially poisoned ground that food can never be grown in due to the arsenic levels in the soil, these old dip sites are tracked by the government where known.
But yeah, all the chemicals being sprayed all over your food are completely harmless, so to are the growth hormones and antibiotics your eating every day.
I bet you would have said the same thing about lead pipes 40 years ago.
It's you who wallow in ignorance I'm sorry. Have you even ever stepped foot out of the city?
Machinery.
I really hope that was a joke of a question by the way or the fact that you're currently at +4 means ignorance abounds on this site regarding agriculture.
So when anti-global warming scientists publish findings and they've been paid by big oil you make the same argument in support of them then?
I think not.
No "we" didn't know this already because you're talking absolute crap.
In order to be organically certified in Australia farmers make available their farms for regular long and arduous inspections, are subject to ruthless record keeping requirements and strict farming practices.
But keep telling yourself that the way food was grown for...well since the start of civilisation is a "gimmick" and the factory farms owned by multibillion dollar corps that slather thousands of litres of deadly chemicals all over their land, pump their animals full of antibiotics and hormones and other lovely practices (such as feeding omivores mashed up carcasses) in order to increase production and profit margins by 5% is the natural and "better" state of things.
Ignorance must be bliss for you big city types.
Let us never forget that it was the UK farming industry under the "watchful eye" of the British Government that brought the world BSE by convincing themselves that it was fine and dandy to feed omnivores mashed up sheep, pig and chicken carcasses.
The UK agricultural sector has exactly 0 credibility in the world.
Umm "cow shit" is just mushed up grass and water. If you saw what goes on on a farm and what's put in and on your food you'd sing a vastly different tune technophile.
The average high production farm looks more like a highly toxic chemical factory than anything else these days. Huge piles of super phosphate, sheds full of 44 gallon drums of insecticides, vaccines and drenches all marked with skull and cross bones due to their toxicity to humans.
I come from a long line of farmers and have spent a lot of time on farms big and small, I really don't think city people are aware of what's happening to their food at every stage of the process. There's still a romantisised notion in peoples minds that farming is generally still done like it used to be. This is still true in small pockets but if you buy your food in a supermarket, you aren't buying small farm produce.
My biggest concern right now is feedlot beef, I have a cousin who works in an abattoir and he's gone right off eating beef that's been raised in feedlots due to what he sees when he cuts them (mongoloid internal organs for a starters and quite a bit of disease). Not to mention I have a natural aversion to eating "meat product" grown in a factory part owned by the Mitsubishi Corporation.
It's only the last 15 years that the factory farm has really taken off, so we're the first generation to really bear the brunt of it. Who knows what the sort of problems we're going to be dealing with in 20 or 30 years.
It's a worry but there are ways around it if you care. For example my family all combined and bought a whole grass fed cow off a small old school farm outside of the city here and had it butchered by the local butcher. It ended up costing $6 a kilo and we each got 6 months worth of meat. And good god it tastes good, I can never go back to supermarket (or most butchered meat) again.
We're all growing our own veges again as well.
In the days when free market capitalism wasn't a dirty word and huge corporations didn't think they had a birth right to cashflow and generally worked hard to make money - 10 or 20 cents profit per CD would have still been seen as profit and worth working for.
Must be nice to have so much money that they can refuse to service customers because it requires some work.
Holy two facedness batman!
"On October 3, 2008, Smith was one of six Texan Republican Congressman to vote for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program[6].
Despite his support of the bill, he also was a proponent of the 2009 Tea Party protests which condemned any bailouts, and even sent rallies in his district a letter which encouraged them "to protest the massive expansion in the size and scope of government currently underway". [7]"
I bet the fork tongued viper sleeps like a baby on his mountains of corrupt cash at night as well.
There simply must be revolution in western governance.
What's peak oil got to do with placing huge taxes on electricity generated by burning coal? Your fallback argument is a fallacy.
We've got about 200 years worth of coal left to power half the world here in Australia alone.
We've also got that much uranium but noone seems to want it, the world just loves us for our coal. It seems ironic that the environmental movement probably has made a bigger contribution to global warming than anyone when they forced the end of the nuclear power movement 30 years ago. And even now they rather keep coal plants in business than accept the only rational solution to the problem they say is going to cause the end of humanity if we don't stop using coal.
Must suck to live inside one of their heads.
Crazy times.
Who's long and short term survival? Yours specifically or the entire human races?
People live in depths of Siberia.
People live in the Sahara.
The human race isn't going anywhere unless the entire planet turns into a molten ball of magma and even then someone would probably figure out a way of living with it. We're a pretty adaptive bunch see.
Now there'll probably be a reduction in the population of the planet, but in reality it will be offset by the new farming prospects opened up in the colder areas. Like now it's possible to grow wheat in areas around my region that were never able to grow wheat before about 1998 due to the long bitter winters.
And *us* specifically, we will barely see the consequences of it in our lifetimes which is something that's always conveniently forgotten by doomsayers. I think many global warming advocates quietly enjoy the implicit assumption that they've created in the publics mind that we're in some sort of hollywood movie where the earth is about to be wiped out in the next five to ten years.
Rational people should openly reject such lunacy as it will create a public backlash when nothing "bad" happens in that timeframe.
A measured approach is always the best way.