You're forgetting that due to Quebecois, it's legal to secede from Canada. If the push you're suggesting would come to shove, Alberta would likely secede from confederation.
Socialism is by definition incompatible with Nordic Social Democracy model. We categorically reject all main cornerstones of socialism, and instead go for market economy with high taxation that funds the baseline income level and services.
We do have socialist in every Nordic state by the way. They're the marginal far left parties, rejected by overwhelming majority of the populace. Here in Finland for example, far left openly socialist Vasemmistoliitto holds between 5 and 8% of the vote, and is a minor party. They also have some communists in their party, but their leadership generally denounces communism and sticks to socialism. I can provide citations for that as well.
It would be very helpful if wannabe far leftists from across the pond would stop insulting our countries, our politicians and our ways of life by maliciously branding them as "socialist" for their own political purposes. Have your class war if you want, but leave us well out of it.
I live in a country with socialized healthcare that was recently measured to have some of the best outcomes in the most expensive fields in the world (oncology) while also being among the most efficient medical systems in the world.
You are spouting utter garbage. Around here, the most popular medical repository is private. Do you know why? Because it's in a direct interest of both public and private medical organisations to ensure that their doctors are as efficient as possible. That means making treatment plans as quickly and as accurately as possible. Therefore there's a significant financial motivation for both public and private sector healthcare providers (both of which exist here) to have a wide reaching database of as accurate and as widely accepted treatment plan suggestions as possible, which is easily accessible to all doctors.
So while I think that US healthcare system is just a failure on merits, your arguments against it are just as one sidedly ignorant and awful. This is an example of a case where private sector has a significant vested interest in maintaining a database of this kind, and keeping it as accurate and up to date as reasonably possible.
That is of course, if said database was indeed doing what is advertised, and not some kind of a political tool, which tends to unfortunately happen when politics get involved.
If you had any clue, you'd understand that far right nutters are just as much for planned economy as far left nutters.
People who argue for divestment are far-libertarian types, who rank high on libertarian-totalitarian scale. They cannot be neither far left nor far right, because dogma of both of those extremes dictates totalitarian government control.
"Liberal view points" are the exact same thing actually.
And then there is the non-extremist overwhelming majority that don't do that shit on either side that actually get views unlike most of the extremist content that is watched by almost no one, but that would get in the way of your narrative, so let's not talk about them.
Please. Judge Dredd had the law to answer to. Admins at wikipedia have only the lynch mob of their peers.
Jimbo pretty much nailed it many years back, when he was asked about it. Paraphrasing from memory, "wikipedia isn't about facts, it's about popular opinions".
This whining of yours strongly reinforces my suspicion that you just had the copy-paste links ready, and you just needed to jury-rig them into context somehow, rather than just opinionated ignorance.
Because the topic was indeed adaptation to changing environmental factors, and evolution is literally what we call the process natural adaptation to changing environmental factors in living beings.
So indeed, there's no hope for conversation when other party is in it for malicious reasons, and isn't interested in discussion at all. Just pushing the narrative, regardless of context.
That moment when you literally cite a well documented example, and the person answers you with "I have no clue what you're talking about, so I'm going to talk about my utter ignorance of basics as if it established facts about you".
Okay. Not much there so say really, if you can't even comprehend what I just posted, and instead go for a completely different topic, there's nothing to be said. Ignorance can be penetrated. Opinionated ignorance cannot.
Drought - catastrophist claims came in 1990s, with suggestions that drought would be killing even more than it was killing back then today. Access to clean drinking water is best it ever was. Debunked. Famine - exact same as drought. We're on track to beat the most optimistic UN targets for defeating world hunger. We've gone from tens of millions dead and hundreds of millions with stunted growth and mental retardation to almost no dead and almost no stunted growth and mental retardation. And we're well on track to eliminate it. Mass migration - primary factor is not "seeking food and water" which is readily available in places like Africa today. The problem is implosion of populace in Europe and explosion of populace in Africa. Which leads to the natural pull. War - we're literally at some of the lowest if not the lowest levels of warfare in known history. Aforementioned tensions from population disparities will pull people however, which will likely lead to more warfare on global scale.
And yes, you should in fact look up Lebensraum on merits, rather than as "nazis are bad mmkay and I don't actually know why". Because it will tell you that should we actually need more space to live, Siberia and Russian Far East are still largely empty, and as global warming progresses, they become far more hospitable for humanity. With wheat belt moving south a few tens of meters every year and access to large rivers being opened up, it stands a good chance of becoming one of the more agriculturally productive regions on the planet.
No, I'm just sad at yet another green activist/someone who has been duped by green activists to believe something that is opposite of reality.
A good example of slow adaptation has been adaptation to post ice age warming in Europe in fact. Everything from emergence of white skin to new farming methods has facilitated being able to exist in areas where just ten thousand years ago, people would have died to combination of lack of know how on how to manage resources and lack of vitamin D.
-Most of everything on the planet is non-deadly to humans by the same measure. -At the same time more CO2 in the air means more effective plant life. This means more food and is one of the main causes of the fact that we have beaten the most positive UN projections for beating world hunger. It's all but gone. And if what we know about plant life based on growing them in greenhouses is true, plants would love to have much, MUCH more CO2 in the air for optimal growth. Far more than would be healthy for our respiratory systems in long term, and far more than even the most catastrophist projections would show in a millenia. -This was one of the central false claims behind the "world hunger will explode" narrative in 1990s. It has been long debunked. -This has been the case throughout human history. People move around for variety of reasons, such as the current migration crisis being caused by explosive population growth in Africa combined with implosive population collapse in Europe. This is not a threat to humanity. It's simply a continuation of "more of the same" of human history and its natural progression, and considering the nature of modern food production, it's going to be more of the same of the current warfare. As in more of the fairly well satiated misery than actual death. -Are there people and plants that co-exist with those insects, or do these insects exist outside their biological niche in your mind? Because for your claim to make sense, latter would have to be true.
It is extremely likely for humans to manage this relatively unscathed. It requires no more co-operation between those that have "nothing" which by modern standards is more than most tribal leaders had a few hundred years ago, and those who have a lot, because strife for resources in modern world ceased being about survival now that world hunger has been all but defeated. It's now a struggle for comfort in life.
You should share this knowledge with greenhouse farmers that they're doing it wrong then. Because that's why we call CO2 "greenhouse gas". We massively increase the concentration of CO2 in greenhouses, because it makes plants grow faster and bigger food produce.
Most people who argue about extinction event consistently ignore that this extinction event has been ongoing for at least 10000 years. Likely longer.
We're still here, and we don't actually need a primeval ecosystem. It's in fact severely detrimental to us as species, which is why humans started managing their environment, starting the current extinction event during the hunter-gather phase.
By your logic, it appears to have so far saved hundreds of millions at the very least. Plant life became much more efficient due to more CO2 in the air, serving the fight against world hunger. Which is almost over. We crushed it. As long as there isn't war disrupting our ability to get food to the destination, there's more enough food in the world to feed everyone even with the population growth in poorest regions being as explosive as it is.
So by your logic, it's going to have to do a lot of killing to even get to net zero, and it's not getting there any time soon, and likely never. Which is why I suggest using rational thinking, rather than absurd catastrophism.
Slow as in well within optimal speed for our species to adapt successfully. Species with slow reproduction cycle and only biological adaptation methods at their disposal are the ones being hit the hardest.
Current projections are that if certain amounts of CO2 are in atmosphere by the end of this century (more than 80 years), and that rate of growth persists we'll be likely facing major survival related issues at around 2400-2500 or so. Considering the rate of adaptation over decades when global warming was recognised as a problem, we'll adapt long before the deadline, either to lower the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, or to adapt to the changing habitat.
More utter nonsense. Even a cursory examination of anthropology demonstrates clearly that humans are best at adapting to slow changes and worst at adapting to rapid ones.
Our "fucking food" would love several TIMES the CO2 in the air. Research CO2 amounts usually used in greenhouses. Those are optimized to produce maximum growth.
It's one of the key reasons why we have all but beaten world hunger, well ahead of the most optimistic UN estimations at the time when it looked absolutely catastrophic, was killing millions to tens of millions, and causing severe developmental stunting in tens to hundreds of millions. There's a reason why we call CO2 a "greenhouse gas". It's what we pump at high concentrations into greenhouses to make our food grow bigger and faster.
I don't like at "articles", which are "opinion of someone about the discussion". Suggesting this is a good way of discovering what was said in the discussion is like saying that game of telephone is a good way to convey information accurately.
I looked at the screenshots of the discussion itself.
And it's this sort of nonsense that is the reason why so many people are convinced it's a hoax. Because the factual statement is mixed with patently absurd claim.
Yes, the climate change is causing the outlier weather to increase. Yes, it is in part human made. Yes, rationality is relevant.
No it's not going to kill us, nor is it going to kill our children. Humans as species are at their best when adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment. Global warming is the definition of such a change. It's why essentially all of the catastrophist "we're all going to die" predictions made on it so far have been proven false, such as that we're going to starve due to reduction of farmland (least world hunger ever right now, and we're well ahead of the most optimistic projections).
Because we adapted. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to slow the global warming down by phasing CO2 emissions where we reasonably can to make adaptation easier. Equally doesn't mean that "it's going to kill us or our children".
Don't be stupid like the parent or the idiots that upvoted him. Be rational, understand the actual problem rather than the ridiculous hyperbole, and act accordingly. That is how you bring people who read the "we're all going to starve", see that in two decades, we produce more food than ever before and world hunger crisis is almost solved, and conclude that doomsayers were wrong about everything they said, rather than just their conclusions based on facts.
Not just a customer, but an official PR partner. She basically made a sexist attack on someone who had official channels in the company reserved specially for people like him.
It was stupidity to the extreme. She would have likely gotten away with it if it wasn't someone who actually had people inside the company who's jobs are to address their immediate concerns related to the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Norwegian salmon. Huge thing, known across fish eaters world wide, all the way to Japan.
Norwegian hydro. That thing that keeps Denmark's grid running when it isn't windy.
Just two examples. Want more?
You're forgetting that due to Quebecois, it's legal to secede from Canada. If the push you're suggesting would come to shove, Alberta would likely secede from confederation.
Socialism is by definition incompatible with Nordic Social Democracy model. We categorically reject all main cornerstones of socialism, and instead go for market economy with high taxation that funds the baseline income level and services.
We do have socialist in every Nordic state by the way. They're the marginal far left parties, rejected by overwhelming majority of the populace. Here in Finland for example, far left openly socialist Vasemmistoliitto holds between 5 and 8% of the vote, and is a minor party. They also have some communists in their party, but their leadership generally denounces communism and sticks to socialism. I can provide citations for that as well.
It would be very helpful if wannabe far leftists from across the pond would stop insulting our countries, our politicians and our ways of life by maliciously branding them as "socialist" for their own political purposes. Have your class war if you want, but leave us well out of it.
I live in a country with socialized healthcare that was recently measured to have some of the best outcomes in the most expensive fields in the world (oncology) while also being among the most efficient medical systems in the world.
You are spouting utter garbage. Around here, the most popular medical repository is private. Do you know why? Because it's in a direct interest of both public and private medical organisations to ensure that their doctors are as efficient as possible. That means making treatment plans as quickly and as accurately as possible. Therefore there's a significant financial motivation for both public and private sector healthcare providers (both of which exist here) to have a wide reaching database of as accurate and as widely accepted treatment plan suggestions as possible, which is easily accessible to all doctors.
So while I think that US healthcare system is just a failure on merits, your arguments against it are just as one sidedly ignorant and awful. This is an example of a case where private sector has a significant vested interest in maintaining a database of this kind, and keeping it as accurate and up to date as reasonably possible.
That is of course, if said database was indeed doing what is advertised, and not some kind of a political tool, which tends to unfortunately happen when politics get involved.
If you had any clue, you'd understand that far right nutters are just as much for planned economy as far left nutters.
People who argue for divestment are far-libertarian types, who rank high on libertarian-totalitarian scale. They cannot be neither far left nor far right, because dogma of both of those extremes dictates totalitarian government control.
Fighting fire with fire is a thing, but it tends to end badly if you don't know exactly what you're doing.
"Liberal view points" are the exact same thing actually.
And then there is the non-extremist overwhelming majority that don't do that shit on either side that actually get views unlike most of the extremist content that is watched by almost no one, but that would get in the way of your narrative, so let's not talk about them.
Please. Judge Dredd had the law to answer to. Admins at wikipedia have only the lynch mob of their peers.
Jimbo pretty much nailed it many years back, when he was asked about it. Paraphrasing from memory, "wikipedia isn't about facts, it's about popular opinions".
This whining of yours strongly reinforces my suspicion that you just had the copy-paste links ready, and you just needed to jury-rig them into context somehow, rather than just opinionated ignorance.
Because the topic was indeed adaptation to changing environmental factors, and evolution is literally what we call the process natural adaptation to changing environmental factors in living beings.
So indeed, there's no hope for conversation when other party is in it for malicious reasons, and isn't interested in discussion at all. Just pushing the narrative, regardless of context.
That moment when you literally cite a well documented example, and the person answers you with "I have no clue what you're talking about, so I'm going to talk about my utter ignorance of basics as if it established facts about you".
Okay. Not much there so say really, if you can't even comprehend what I just posted, and instead go for a completely different topic, there's nothing to be said. Ignorance can be penetrated. Opinionated ignorance cannot.
Drought - catastrophist claims came in 1990s, with suggestions that drought would be killing even more than it was killing back then today. Access to clean drinking water is best it ever was. Debunked.
Famine - exact same as drought. We're on track to beat the most optimistic UN targets for defeating world hunger. We've gone from tens of millions dead and hundreds of millions with stunted growth and mental retardation to almost no dead and almost no stunted growth and mental retardation. And we're well on track to eliminate it.
Mass migration - primary factor is not "seeking food and water" which is readily available in places like Africa today. The problem is implosion of populace in Europe and explosion of populace in Africa. Which leads to the natural pull.
War - we're literally at some of the lowest if not the lowest levels of warfare in known history. Aforementioned tensions from population disparities will pull people however, which will likely lead to more warfare on global scale.
And yes, you should in fact look up Lebensraum on merits, rather than as "nazis are bad mmkay and I don't actually know why". Because it will tell you that should we actually need more space to live, Siberia and Russian Far East are still largely empty, and as global warming progresses, they become far more hospitable for humanity. With wheat belt moving south a few tens of meters every year and access to large rivers being opened up, it stands a good chance of becoming one of the more agriculturally productive regions on the planet.
No, I'm just sad at yet another green activist/someone who has been duped by green activists to believe something that is opposite of reality.
A good example of slow adaptation has been adaptation to post ice age warming in Europe in fact. Everything from emergence of white skin to new farming methods has facilitated being able to exist in areas where just ten thousand years ago, people would have died to combination of lack of know how on how to manage resources and lack of vitamin D.
-Most of everything on the planet is non-deadly to humans by the same measure.
-At the same time more CO2 in the air means more effective plant life. This means more food and is one of the main causes of the fact that we have beaten the most positive UN projections for beating world hunger. It's all but gone. And if what we know about plant life based on growing them in greenhouses is true, plants would love to have much, MUCH more CO2 in the air for optimal growth. Far more than would be healthy for our respiratory systems in long term, and far more than even the most catastrophist projections would show in a millenia.
-This was one of the central false claims behind the "world hunger will explode" narrative in 1990s. It has been long debunked.
-This has been the case throughout human history. People move around for variety of reasons, such as the current migration crisis being caused by explosive population growth in Africa combined with implosive population collapse in Europe. This is not a threat to humanity. It's simply a continuation of "more of the same" of human history and its natural progression, and considering the nature of modern food production, it's going to be more of the same of the current warfare. As in more of the fairly well satiated misery than actual death.
-Are there people and plants that co-exist with those insects, or do these insects exist outside their biological niche in your mind? Because for your claim to make sense, latter would have to be true.
It is extremely likely for humans to manage this relatively unscathed. It requires no more co-operation between those that have "nothing" which by modern standards is more than most tribal leaders had a few hundred years ago, and those who have a lot, because strife for resources in modern world ceased being about survival now that world hunger has been all but defeated. It's now a struggle for comfort in life.
Thanks for once again making a point that modern green movement views nature in religious rather than scientific terms.
You should share this knowledge with greenhouse farmers that they're doing it wrong then. Because that's why we call CO2 "greenhouse gas". We massively increase the concentration of CO2 in greenhouses, because it makes plants grow faster and bigger food produce.
While there's always a small chance for screenshots in question to be fake, it's highly unlikely.
Most people who argue about extinction event consistently ignore that this extinction event has been ongoing for at least 10000 years. Likely longer.
We're still here, and we don't actually need a primeval ecosystem. It's in fact severely detrimental to us as species, which is why humans started managing their environment, starting the current extinction event during the hunter-gather phase.
By your logic, it appears to have so far saved hundreds of millions at the very least. Plant life became much more efficient due to more CO2 in the air, serving the fight against world hunger. Which is almost over. We crushed it. As long as there isn't war disrupting our ability to get food to the destination, there's more enough food in the world to feed everyone even with the population growth in poorest regions being as explosive as it is.
So by your logic, it's going to have to do a lot of killing to even get to net zero, and it's not getting there any time soon, and likely never. Which is why I suggest using rational thinking, rather than absurd catastrophism.
Slow as in well within optimal speed for our species to adapt successfully. Species with slow reproduction cycle and only biological adaptation methods at their disposal are the ones being hit the hardest.
Current projections are that if certain amounts of CO2 are in atmosphere by the end of this century (more than 80 years), and that rate of growth persists we'll be likely facing major survival related issues at around 2400-2500 or so. Considering the rate of adaptation over decades when global warming was recognised as a problem, we'll adapt long before the deadline, either to lower the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, or to adapt to the changing habitat.
More utter nonsense. Even a cursory examination of anthropology demonstrates clearly that humans are best at adapting to slow changes and worst at adapting to rapid ones.
Our "fucking food" would love several TIMES the CO2 in the air. Research CO2 amounts usually used in greenhouses. Those are optimized to produce maximum growth.
It's one of the key reasons why we have all but beaten world hunger, well ahead of the most optimistic UN estimations at the time when it looked absolutely catastrophic, was killing millions to tens of millions, and causing severe developmental stunting in tens to hundreds of millions. There's a reason why we call CO2 a "greenhouse gas". It's what we pump at high concentrations into greenhouses to make our food grow bigger and faster.
Like I said, you don't want to know how sausage is made, because it spoils the taste in some cases.
And it shouldn't. The sausage is still delicious.
I don't like at "articles", which are "opinion of someone about the discussion". Suggesting this is a good way of discovering what was said in the discussion is like saying that game of telephone is a good way to convey information accurately.
I looked at the screenshots of the discussion itself.
And it's this sort of nonsense that is the reason why so many people are convinced it's a hoax. Because the factual statement is mixed with patently absurd claim.
Yes, the climate change is causing the outlier weather to increase. Yes, it is in part human made. Yes, rationality is relevant.
No it's not going to kill us, nor is it going to kill our children. Humans as species are at their best when adapting to slow, ongoing changes to their environment. Global warming is the definition of such a change. It's why essentially all of the catastrophist "we're all going to die" predictions made on it so far have been proven false, such as that we're going to starve due to reduction of farmland (least world hunger ever right now, and we're well ahead of the most optimistic projections).
Because we adapted. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to slow the global warming down by phasing CO2 emissions where we reasonably can to make adaptation easier. Equally doesn't mean that "it's going to kill us or our children".
Don't be stupid like the parent or the idiots that upvoted him. Be rational, understand the actual problem rather than the ridiculous hyperbole, and act accordingly. That is how you bring people who read the "we're all going to starve", see that in two decades, we produce more food than ever before and world hunger crisis is almost solved, and conclude that doomsayers were wrong about everything they said, rather than just their conclusions based on facts.
Not just a customer, but an official PR partner. She basically made a sexist attack on someone who had official channels in the company reserved specially for people like him.
It was stupidity to the extreme. She would have likely gotten away with it if it wasn't someone who actually had people inside the company who's jobs are to address their immediate concerns related to the company.