Oh yeah and I did read it. The article seems to be about public perception not OMG U SHUD USE THIS TO MAKE TEH SHEEPAL F33R TEH GLOBALZ AWRNINGS OMGLOLOLOL!!111!!!1 rantery that you seem to be going on about.
Hmmm... let's see what they say:
We found that the term "global warming" is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term "climate change."
This report provides results from three studies that collectively find that global warming and climate change... activate different sets of beliefs, feelings, and behaviors, as well as different degrees of urgency about the need to respond.
[global warming generates] A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women, the Greatest Generation, African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, liberals and moderates
By contrast, the use of the term climate change appears to actually reduce issue engagement by Democrats, Independents, liberals, and moderates, as well as a variety of subgroups within American society
The first use of either term that respondents were exposed to was a measure of their positive or negative affect – feelings of good or bad – associated with the term they were given. We found that the two terms evoke different affective reactions by the public.
Well, I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is nothing more than an academic exercise in etymology of terms. You'd have to be a pretty naive to think this report won't be used by engagement groups to sway public opinion.
Did you even bother to read the link? It's from the experts at Yale. So before you accuse ME of crackpottery, consider that I am only passing on the knowledge from the experts. Yell at them, if you don't like the facts.
They never changed the name. Please stop being so freaking stupid.
Please, people, PLEASE just stay on message. It's important that we use the proper terminology to maintain more intense worry about the issue, and instill in the shitizens a greater sense of personal threat.
When exactly did China and Russia tell you they want to ensure our mutual assured destruction? Ever heard of The Kyoto treaty? I dont think it was China or Russia that caused that to fail.
China agreed to it because they were exempted from everything, and they are now the largest producer of CO2 on the planet. Besides, it was actually the Kyoto protocol itself that failed, regardless of who did and didn't sign up for it.
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented
That's rich, from an evangelist like you. There are so many facts getting in the way of evangelizing the AGW alarmism that the alarmists have just taken to saying "Well what difference does it make? We should make all these policy changes even if it's wrong!" Really. Here are a few direct quotes for you.
Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something
Well, they do believe something. Just not catastrophic climate change, or current driver of the most recent changes. Because that was not the question, even though it's claimed that it was.
Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself:-)
Apparently because that's all you've got. Pointing to a Wikipedia article created and religiously (yes) guarded by climate change alarmist politicos really doesn't make much of an argument, does it?
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over. And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
...according to EPA reports without any substantiating data. In fact, they didn't even follow basic Federal guidelines, and that's according to the agency's own Office of Inspector General:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a report showing that the EPA did not comply with federal data guidelines when providing its technical support document (TSD) for the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding.” The EPA used the TSD to justify its endangerment finding and thus pave the way for the EPA’s proposed carbon-dioxide regulations. This revelation should bring to light the problems with the EPA’s approach to greenhouse-gas regulation: The EPA refuses to seriously consider broad dissenting science on the causes of climate change. This is a breach of its responsibility, all the more so when proposing such massive new regulations. Policymakers must have full and accurate information from all sides of the debate, not only that of the regulators.
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason.
Oh, they have lots of reasons. Envy, group-based politics, delusions of a Bold New World Order, valuing equality of outcomes over equality under the law, romantic notions of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, etc., etc. Of course most would never admit their goal is to make everyone equally poor, it's just the inevitable result of the centralization of power heavy-handed, cradle-to-grave regulatory scheme that their policies are driving toward.
It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate
the income tax hits those with the most marginal propensity for consumption (bad for economy)
Incorrect. A wealth tax would do that. The income tax does not. Instead, it hits hardest those with the least assets and thus must sell their time as labor.
So what goes GDP have to do with petrol taxes again?
Apparently, in New Zealand, not much, certainly if the wage slaves have years to get used to the government keeping it inflated.
I'm actually surprised to find there are vehicles running on petrol there at all. New Zealand is tiny by American standards. You can't go 1000 miles in one direction without falling into the ocean from the furthest points, and in some places it's only 14 miles from coast-to-coast.
Besides, I thought most people there just rode around on sheep.
Fuckheads. I'd rather see a direct income tax hike - at least that way it's an honest attempt, and it doesn't jack up the price of everything else.
Besides, the gas tax is regressive, because it hits the poor hardest. At least the income tax is designed to be progressive (even though most of the elites at the top pay very little or none at all, thanks to tax code favoritism).
Re:Welcome to the 21st Century....
on
Freecode Freezeup
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I never thought I'd see an "open source" project hosting site devolve to a state that makes CNet Downloads look good.
Indeed. They even include ads that look like fake "Download" buttons (bigger than the download link), and I've even seen installers embed things like McAfee trials and adware in the installers. It's gotten so bad, my company blocks SourceForge downloads at the proxy.
Your numbers don't work. If we have a vaccine that's 80% effective 33% of the time, and absolutely worthless otherwise, it's still 26.4% effective, not 16%. If I get to skip the flu once, that'll make a whole lot of vaccine injections worth it.
The numbers are a stab in the dark. The 80% figure is actually higher than the efficacy in the general population - it was based on studies in the 1950s and 1960s using military personnel, all given the vaccine as a requirement. Per-year studies show closer to 40-60% for specific years based on various strains.
I actually had it backwards. There's a rather complicated process to select the strains to use in the vaccine, that starts with the WHO, and the CDC uses its own criteria to select the strains. But they don't use 1-of-3, they use 3-of-many (flu vaccines are trivalent, meaning they protect against 3 specific types).
I posted a link in this thread to some information on the process. There are some good data on efficacy for specific years and geographic areas, but I couldn't find any, even meta-studies, that came up with a rate for a decade or range of years.
The report from the University of Minnesota's CIDRAP has some good information in it, but it's focus is to promote research into a new way to combat flu. They still make a compelling case that the current methods are not working like advertised, in that while there is a slightly lower infection rate in the immunized population, the number of hospitalizations and deaths are no different from using no vaccines.
And yes, it is unfair to tax people on the money left over from their income after taxing them on their income, which is what a wealth tax amounts to.
First, if you implement a wealth tax, it's not necessary to continue an income tax. It could be structured to only tax very high incomes at a low rate (the way the income tax was sold to the American people originally, and how it was first implemented). As far as "fair" - since you brought it up. It is unfair to tax people on their labor when it is the only asset available to them for trade on the market. It is also unfair to tax people on income when they are insolvent, but we do that anyway. It doesn't matter, in the income tax, that your basic living expenses are higher than your income. Your income is taxed at the same rate regardless. Think of it this way. If you have assets that are generating revenue, you pay 0% on that asset, and only 15% when it generates income for you or you sell it at a profit. To generate revenue from your labor, 100% of your labor is subject to taxation, and can go up to 33%. So, it's not fair NOW.
It's already beneficial for them to have productive assets, and having a wealth tax makes it less beneficial.
You can say the same about labor in an income tax system. That is, you can benefit from your time, but if you trade it for wages, it is LESS beneficial since it's now subject to tax. There is no difference, based on your assertion.
If they have to sell off assets to pay a tax because they have that asset, then they are much better off keeping that in cash so they don't have to sell at a loss when the time comes to pay and the profits won't cover the tax.
This really doesn't make any sense. First, if they have an asset to sell, any profits would be taxed as capital gains anyway. If they have an unproductive asset, it beneficial to the general welfare to sell it so someone else can make it productive. The IRS will collect tax regardless. This is the same as someone self-employed (which requires not only income tax but also out-of-pocket self-employment taxes). At the end of the quarter they must pay this tax. If their profits were not high enough, they can't pay the income tax, either, and since they are selling labor, they also have no assets to sell.
Taxes never accelerate growth. They are a drain on the economy, funneling money from where people can use it productively and hindering growth and expansion. You can't tax your way out of economic woes.
That's exactly my point. Yet there must be a way to fund government services. The wealth tax would be a LESSER drain on the economy than the income tax, which drains money disproportionally from the lower and middle classes, who have less money to spend in the economy, which is driven by consumer spending. The wealth tax would de-incentivise idle wealth. Idle wealth does nothing to help the economy.
Not sure why you're so indoctrinated on this issue you feel compelled to not just ignore factual information, but to launch personal attacks against anyone that would point them out.
Others have already posted the issues with the H1N1 / H1N2 interactions, so I won't bother repeating that. I would point you to some information from the CDC
:
What do recent vaccine effectiveness studies show?
CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the flu vaccine protects against flu illness. These estimates provide more information about how well this season’s vaccine is working. Recent studies show vaccine can reduce the risk of flu illness by about 60% among the overall population during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are like the viruses the flu vaccine is designed to protect against.
And from a very large study in Europe for 2012 / 2013:
Our results suggest an overall low to moderate AVE against influenza B, A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2), between 42 and 50%.
On the basis of our review, we conclude that the currently licensed influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. It also supports the conclusion that, Based on a track record of substantial safety and moderate efficacy in many seasons, we believe the current influenza vaccines will continue to have a role in reduction of influenza morbidity until more effective interventions are available. However, evidence for consistent high-level protection is elusive for the present generation of vaccines, especially in individuals at risk of medical complications or those aged 65 years or older.
That's probably because people receiving the vaccine were far more likely to work in healthcare settings, and therefore be exposed to infection, not because the vaccine weakens one's resistance to influenza. In controlled studies, the inactivated vaccine cuts your chance of being infected roughly in half, and shortens the period of clinical symptoms. The live vaccine is even more effective.
No, it had nothing to do with higher exposure risk, it was a very large study. And the results were replicated in a controlled experiment on pigs, which showed that vaccines that target the N2 strain causes worsened respiratory issues in those infected with N1.
There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.
Not quite. The 80% effective rate is only when the correct strain is targeted by the vaccine. And that's only about 33% of the time. That means the overall effective rate for any given year is actually around 16%.
There have even been studies of the H1N1 vaccine in Canada that showed that the people that received the vaccine were slightly more likely to become infected.
Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.
I know nobody reads the articles, but at least take a look at the summary before making stupid comments:
of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.
When J. Throckmorton Richguy builds a company and is reported with a "wealth" of 100 million dollars he's not got that 100 million dollars sitting around in cash. That 100 million is land and plant and equipment and inventory and other assets like billable sales.
The land is already taxed, typically at the local level as a property tax. And that tax is paid REGARDLESS of any offsetting debts. That's the situation now. So plant (which would be part of the "improvement" of the land that's used to figure property tax) is included in that. Equipment and inventory, if it's owned without liens, would be taxed at some rate. "Other assets" might be (depending), and billable sales, well, that's always included as an asset on an income statement, which goes to figure income tax.
So it's really irrelevant what is being taxed. It modifies behavior of the business owner. Since that's the case, it makes more sense for the very wealthy to ensure that their assets are PRODUCTIVE. It actually accelerates growth, the opposite of your layman's supposition about its affect on the economy and the pressures on the owners of capital.
Because it is a horrible idea that serves only to make those with class envy feel better. "Wealth" isn't just money that is sitting in a box or buried in the back yard, it's money that is actively working in loans to businesses and people, and in running companies and feeding jobs.
... jobs held by people that sell their time and labor for a pittance, then hand over half of it to the government kleptocracy, which uses it to kill brown people in sand and loan it out at zero interest to people that loan it out to other people at 2% interest... ad nosium until some poor sucker pushing the wheel for the man gets to "buy" a house at a higher rate and then pay more taxes on that.
Oh... wait. It's WEALTH now! Tax it! Can't have those middle class people getting uppity!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah and I did read it. The article seems to be about public perception not OMG U SHUD USE THIS TO MAKE TEH SHEEPAL F33R TEH GLOBALZ AWRNINGS OMGLOLOLOL!!111!!!1 rantery that you seem to be going on about.
Hmmm... let's see what they say:
Well, I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is nothing more than an academic exercise in etymology of terms. You'd have to be a pretty naive to think this report won't be used by engagement groups to sway public opinion.
You mad, bro?
Did you even bother to read the link? It's from the experts at Yale. So before you accuse ME of crackpottery, consider that I am only passing on the knowledge from the experts. Yell at them, if you don't like the facts.
Do you have a citation saying that the MWP was warmer world wide?
Yep. There's one right here. And here is another one you won't like.
They never changed the name. Please stop being so freaking stupid.
Please, people, PLEASE just stay on message. It's important that we use the proper terminology to maintain more intense worry about the issue, and instill in the shitizens a greater sense of personal threat.
When exactly did China and Russia tell you they want to ensure our mutual assured destruction? Ever heard of The Kyoto treaty? I dont think it was China or Russia that caused that to fail.
China agreed to it because they were exempted from everything, and they are now the largest producer of CO2 on the planet. Besides, it was actually the Kyoto protocol itself that failed, regardless of who did and didn't sign up for it.
The problem is you take something like the paper you cited and act as if it's the only thing causing ice melt rather than one factor among several.
Hmmm... that sounds familiar.
The Telegraph and a denier's site. Yes, so very convincing.
SUCK IT, Denialists! We're gonna play this up until you're BEGGING for someone to come take away your gas and heat.
WooHoo! We're back baby! It's on.
Feel the fear, shitizens. Feel the Fear. Buhahahhaha!
Of course it's not, but when idiots like you ignore science no matter what facts are presented
That's rich, from an evangelist like you. There are so many facts getting in the way of evangelizing the AGW alarmism that the alarmists have just taken to saying "Well what difference does it make? We should make all these policy changes even if it's wrong!" Really. Here are a few direct quotes for you.
Also, if 97% of scientists all believe something
Well, they do believe something. Just not catastrophic climate change, or current driver of the most recent changes. Because that was not the question, even though it's claimed that it was.
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature)
Yes, "narrowly defined" as in "people who study this stuff and therefore are qualified to talk about": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I won't even respond to the rest of your "crackpot"-ishnes; it refutes itself :-)
Apparently because that's all you've got. Pointing to a Wikipedia article created and religiously (yes) guarded by climate change alarmist politicos really doesn't make much of an argument, does it?
That "97%" BS argument has been debunked over and over. And it's repeated ad nauseum by people that should know science is not about consensus.
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms
That would be a first since it the past EPA regulations have generally cost less than expected and have provided benefits that far outweigh any costs they may impose.
...according to EPA reports without any substantiating data. In fact, they didn't even follow basic Federal guidelines, and that's according to the agency's own Office of Inspector General:
Yeah, it must have to do with really bored "liberals" having nothing better to do than make people poor for no reason.
Oh, they have lots of reasons. Envy, group-based politics, delusions of a Bold New World Order, valuing equality of outcomes over equality under the law, romantic notions of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, etc., etc. Of course most would never admit their goal is to make everyone equally poor, it's just the inevitable result of the centralization of power heavy-handed, cradle-to-grave regulatory scheme that their policies are driving toward.
It couldn't possibly be that the overwheleming magjority of climate scientists all agree we're causing irreversible changes in our climate
(For our very narrow definition of qualified "climate scientists") (and broad assumptions in reviewing the literature)
that will eventually result in thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of death and billions of dollars of property damage, or anything like that ...
These EPA regulations are going to be a lot more expensive than that, in both terms.
the income tax hits those with the most marginal propensity for consumption (bad for economy)
Incorrect. A wealth tax would do that. The income tax does not. Instead, it hits hardest those with the least assets and thus must sell their time as labor.
So what goes GDP have to do with petrol taxes again?
Apparently, in New Zealand, not much, certainly if the wage slaves have years to get used to the government keeping it inflated.
I'm actually surprised to find there are vehicles running on petrol there at all. New Zealand is tiny by American standards. You can't go 1000 miles in one direction without falling into the ocean from the furthest points, and in some places it's only 14 miles from coast-to-coast.
Besides, I thought most people there just rode around on sheep.
Fuckheads. I'd rather see a direct income tax hike - at least that way it's an honest attempt, and it doesn't jack up the price of everything else.
Besides, the gas tax is regressive, because it hits the poor hardest. At least the income tax is designed to be progressive (even though most of the elites at the top pay very little or none at all, thanks to tax code favoritism).
I never thought I'd see an "open source" project hosting site devolve to a state that makes CNet Downloads look good.
Indeed. They even include ads that look like fake "Download" buttons (bigger than the download link), and I've even seen installers embed things like McAfee trials and adware in the installers. It's gotten so bad, my company blocks SourceForge downloads at the proxy.
"Peaking" means that sales are at an all-time high and expected to slope downward soon.
No, it means the acid has kicked into full gear and your brain is sizzling like tart red lime and the stars are winking in time with the music.
Your numbers don't work. If we have a vaccine that's 80% effective 33% of the time, and absolutely worthless otherwise, it's still 26.4% effective, not 16%. If I get to skip the flu once, that'll make a whole lot of vaccine injections worth it.
The numbers are a stab in the dark. The 80% figure is actually higher than the efficacy in the general population - it was based on studies in the 1950s and 1960s using military personnel, all given the vaccine as a requirement. Per-year studies show closer to 40-60% for specific years based on various strains.
I actually had it backwards. There's a rather complicated process to select the strains to use in the vaccine, that starts with the WHO, and the CDC uses its own criteria to select the strains. But they don't use 1-of-3, they use 3-of-many (flu vaccines are trivalent, meaning they protect against 3 specific types).
I posted a link in this thread to some information on the process. There are some good data on efficacy for specific years and geographic areas, but I couldn't find any, even meta-studies, that came up with a rate for a decade or range of years.
The report from the University of Minnesota's CIDRAP has some good information in it, but it's focus is to promote research into a new way to combat flu. They still make a compelling case that the current methods are not working like advertised, in that while there is a slightly lower infection rate in the immunized population, the number of hospitalizations and deaths are no different from using no vaccines.
And yes, it is unfair to tax people on the money left over from their income after taxing them on their income, which is what a wealth tax amounts to.
First, if you implement a wealth tax, it's not necessary to continue an income tax. It could be structured to only tax very high incomes at a low rate (the way the income tax was sold to the American people originally, and how it was first implemented). As far as "fair" - since you brought it up. It is unfair to tax people on their labor when it is the only asset available to them for trade on the market. It is also unfair to tax people on income when they are insolvent, but we do that anyway. It doesn't matter, in the income tax, that your basic living expenses are higher than your income. Your income is taxed at the same rate regardless. Think of it this way. If you have assets that are generating revenue, you pay 0% on that asset, and only 15% when it generates income for you or you sell it at a profit. To generate revenue from your labor, 100% of your labor is subject to taxation, and can go up to 33%. So, it's not fair NOW.
It's already beneficial for them to have productive assets, and having a wealth tax makes it less beneficial.
You can say the same about labor in an income tax system. That is, you can benefit from your time, but if you trade it for wages, it is LESS beneficial since it's now subject to tax. There is no difference, based on your assertion.
If they have to sell off assets to pay a tax because they have that asset, then they are much better off keeping that in cash so they don't have to sell at a loss when the time comes to pay and the profits won't cover the tax.
This really doesn't make any sense. First, if they have an asset to sell, any profits would be taxed as capital gains anyway. If they have an unproductive asset, it beneficial to the general welfare to sell it so someone else can make it productive. The IRS will collect tax regardless. This is the same as someone self-employed (which requires not only income tax but also out-of-pocket self-employment taxes). At the end of the quarter they must pay this tax. If their profits were not high enough, they can't pay the income tax, either, and since they are selling labor, they also have no assets to sell.
Taxes never accelerate growth. They are a drain on the economy, funneling money from where people can use it productively and hindering growth and expansion. You can't tax your way out of economic woes.
That's exactly my point. Yet there must be a way to fund government services. The wealth tax would be a LESSER drain on the economy than the income tax, which drains money disproportionally from the lower and middle classes, who have less money to spend in the economy, which is driven by consumer spending. The wealth tax would de-incentivise idle wealth. Idle wealth does nothing to help the economy.
Not sure why you're so indoctrinated on this issue you feel compelled to not just ignore factual information, but to launch personal attacks against anyone that would point them out.
Others have already posted the issues with the H1N1 / H1N2 interactions, so I won't bother repeating that. I would point you to some information from the CDC
:
And from a very large study in Europe for 2012 / 2013:
And, finally, this report from the University of Minnesota:
That's probably because people receiving the vaccine were far more likely to work in healthcare settings, and therefore be exposed to infection, not because the vaccine weakens one's resistance to influenza. In controlled studies, the inactivated vaccine cuts your chance of being infected roughly in half, and shortens the period of clinical symptoms. The live vaccine is even more effective.
No, it had nothing to do with higher exposure risk, it was a very large study. And the results were replicated in a controlled experiment on pigs, which showed that vaccines that target the N2 strain causes worsened respiratory issues in those infected with N1.
There are many reasons the flu vaccine "doesn't work", for the most part, because it's only around 80% effective to begin with. They also target specific strains that they think will be the most common in a given region. They do not target every strain of the flu out there.
Not quite. The 80% effective rate is only when the correct strain is targeted by the vaccine. And that's only about 33% of the time. That means the overall effective rate for any given year is actually around 16%.
There have even been studies of the H1N1 vaccine in Canada that showed that the people that received the vaccine were slightly more likely to become infected.
Mexico's vaccination rates are higher than the US.
I know nobody reads the articles, but at least take a look at the summary before making stupid comments:
of the 621 people known to have come down with whooping cough in San Diego county, the vast majority (85 percent) were up to date on their immunizations.
When J. Throckmorton Richguy builds a company and is reported with a "wealth" of 100 million dollars he's not got that 100 million dollars sitting around in cash. That 100 million is land and plant and equipment and inventory and other assets like billable sales.
The land is already taxed, typically at the local level as a property tax. And that tax is paid REGARDLESS of any offsetting debts. That's the situation now. So plant (which would be part of the "improvement" of the land that's used to figure property tax) is included in that. Equipment and inventory, if it's owned without liens, would be taxed at some rate. "Other assets" might be (depending), and billable sales, well, that's always included as an asset on an income statement, which goes to figure income tax.
So it's really irrelevant what is being taxed. It modifies behavior of the business owner. Since that's the case, it makes more sense for the very wealthy to ensure that their assets are PRODUCTIVE. It actually accelerates growth, the opposite of your layman's supposition about its affect on the economy and the pressures on the owners of capital.
Because it is a horrible idea that serves only to make those with class envy feel better. "Wealth" isn't just money that is sitting in a box or buried in the back yard, it's money that is actively working in loans to businesses and people, and in running companies and feeding jobs.
... jobs held by people that sell their time and labor for a pittance, then hand over half of it to the government kleptocracy, which uses it to kill brown people in sand and loan it out at zero interest to people that loan it out to other people at 2% interest ... ad nosium until some poor sucker pushing the wheel for the man gets to "buy" a house at a higher rate and then pay more taxes on that.
Oh... wait. It's WEALTH now! Tax it! Can't have those middle class people getting uppity!