Communist regimes are left- rather than right-leaning.
Communism demonstrated itself to be highly authoritarian ironically under the ostensible goal of anarchy. In the western world, however, authoritarian personalities are almost universally associated with reactionary conservative politices.
Liberalism is starkly different to communism in that liberalism is strongly against government enterprise (which is different to public services), and authoritarianism. Two core beliefs of liberalisms -- going back to the 19thC, is to champion the rights of the individual (against the tyranny of the masses), and also advocated for lassiez-faire economic reforms.
Back then, Liberals advocated for universal health-care, a social safety net, and public education for all. None of these things are inconsistent with each other. Spending money on schools/emergency-services/heath-care/social-security is just a matter of priorities -- not a "statist" stance as the false narrative in the tea party goes.
This just demonstrates the inadequacies of left/right term.
The interesting thing about post-election recrimination, is that everyone always points at the other guy.
That was the problem.
The GOP has far more then one problem. They should have cleaned up this election, but even back in the primaries it was evident that there were serious problems: only Huntsman and Romney stood a chance of winning. How did the GOP get itself into a situation where all the candidates traded popularity with electability?
And then the GOP lost all of those senate races that it should have won. Was that Romney's fault as well?
The kicker for me is that the RNC, Romney team, and conservative news complex were completely clueless about what was about to happen on election day. The polls were dead on if but a very slight conservative bias, and it seams almost the entire GOP was blindsided. That wasn't Romney's fault as well? Really??
You cannot make effective decisions when you are operating in an information black hole. So I would place the blame on the GOP leadership. Those guys should they *lead*, and not simply respond to incentive structures given to them.
If the GOP doesn't do some serious navel-gazing, and make accurate changes to its operations, then the next election will be another huge expensive failure.
It comes down to using information accurately. So you gotta ask, "what REALLY went wrong". Not just point at the fall guy and resume the posture of faultlessness.
The GOP and super-pacs spent about 3x as much per vote as the democrats. I am sure the analysis of how the money was spent would be fascinating. I would love to know why the GOP effort was so inefficient. My guess is that there is a crisis of leadership. After-all Reince Priebus is still the RNC chairman, and he clearly had no idea what was about to happen before the election.
Emissions trading is working in the USA. Australia, and parts of Europe and China are also on board with emissions trading, with Australia tying their market to the Europeans. The Chinese model is to pilot emissions trading in 5 parts of the country to gain know-how on a sensible policy for the entire country.
If you read the report, you'll note that energy bills do change when incentive structures are set.
GHG market, which has obfuscated, irrational and un-achievable goals.
The nay sayers will just quietly move on to something else when they are proven wrong. Watch.
I would be amazed, if ever in the history of insurance companies, that a study of risk calculated that they could lower their premiums.
Free market. If the premiums were easy to calculate, then actuaries would be out on the curb. It is the math that allows insurance companies to offer the most while remaining solvent.
You know, people actually quantify things and then apply statistical methods, in order to see if they are deceiving themselves. You will (almost) always be able to look backwards in history to find a single worse event. The frequency and intensity of events is what matters in a statistical sense.
Scientists have done the math and drawn scientific conclusions on increasing extreme weather events.
But forget them.
The US military did their own analysis an noted the trends in extreme weather events, and have characterised it as a national security problem.
But forget them.
Insurance companies have actuaries who spend their lives studying and calculating risk, and they work out the rates on insurance policies. And the verdict is that premiums will need to go up.
Yes, we should pay the price so rich environmental scientologists can scurry off to Rio in the wintertime more often and not feel guilty about it.
Yep, california's budget troubles are because of rich scientists who love visiting Rio. You know there is an emissions trading scheme in the North East of the USA. And Europe. The evidence is in on how "destructive" and "expensive" they are. Look it up.
As if cap and trade can actually be considered 'trying'.
Gee, you must be a well studied economist!!! You must have studied historic emissions trading programs, and how they were not successful like most people believe, and that the data is just plain wrong!!!
Telling people they may have to change their ways a little is a far more difficult than simply proving the fossil fuel industries wrong.
That is really part of the scare-mongering from the denialists -- the true alarmists. There will be some changes no matter what, but climate action isn't really going to cost a hell of a lot if we do something about it 30 years go, and we can still do a lot today for pennies.
Oh, it's Jane Q Public, competent contrarian number one. And who is that co-researcher you are talking about? Let me guess, there is something completely misread or taken out of context, or perhaps completely absent. But the rumours do paint a flattering picture about your bizarre distortion land, so the/must/ be true, since everyone else is wrong. N'est-ce pas??
They are dull-witted. They think they are right, like we all do. The story-line they tell themselves is a convenient and flattering one, just like us. Every politician needs a sugar-daddy (in the absence of public funding).
and this undoubtedly involves a shake up in the economy,
This is economic scare-mongering that is not born out by real-world evidence. Germany is doing it. China is doing it. Heck, 20% of the US economy is doing it (the greater New York area), and their economy is/growing/ relative to the rest of the USA, despite the apparent "burden" of a carbon tax. In fact, eletricity bills have come down for residents and businesses.
Alarmists indeed.
And it isn't the first time the economic scare-mongering was used to stave of regulation. Same happened with acid rain, and the ozone hole. Regulation was going to ruin the economy (esp. on acid rain). It was all baloney, of course.
Yeah... it is a great mystery, but the bible says less than 10k years, which is obviously wrong, and obviously what is being fished for in the question. And to think that religion is really about seeking truth. I went to the creation museum -- intellectual vapid bunch if ever there was. Funny how the "holy" can be so disingenuous about their motives. I'm sure Jesus would tear town their temple and decry the corruption of the Pharisees.
he is just another person paid to read crystal balls.
Paid by the Koch brothers.
Follow the money -- science is a CONSPIRACY!!!!!
the claims were exaggerated, studies were forged, and statistics were manipulated.
And you know this because you read some conservative blogs? Gee, you must be really educated on the subject. Unlike those full-time scientists who have spend their life studying it. They're just a bunch of commies.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course global warming is real. It started at the end of the last ice age
Do you see what you did there?
.....scary.
According to world bank actuaries (who calculate risk) -- yes. Rates will go up short-term. Long-term, who knows.
I am all for this law, so long as you can still download a movie you have otherwise bought.
Communist regimes are left- rather than right-leaning.
Communism demonstrated itself to be highly authoritarian ironically under the ostensible goal of anarchy. In the western world, however, authoritarian personalities are almost universally associated with reactionary conservative politices.
Liberalism is starkly different to communism in that liberalism is strongly against government enterprise (which is different to public services), and authoritarianism. Two core beliefs of liberalisms -- going back to the 19thC, is to champion the rights of the individual (against the tyranny of the masses), and also advocated for lassiez-faire economic reforms.
Back then, Liberals advocated for universal health-care, a social safety net, and public education for all. None of these things are inconsistent with each other. Spending money on schools/emergency-services/heath-care/social-security is just a matter of priorities -- not a "statist" stance as the false narrative in the tea party goes.
This just demonstrates the inadequacies of left/right term.
That was the problem.
The GOP has far more then one problem. They should have cleaned up this election, but even back in the primaries it was evident that there were serious problems: only Huntsman and Romney stood a chance of winning. How did the GOP get itself into a situation where all the candidates traded popularity with electability?
And then the GOP lost all of those senate races that it should have won. Was that Romney's fault as well?
The kicker for me is that the RNC, Romney team, and conservative news complex were completely clueless about what was about to happen on election day. The polls were dead on if but a very slight conservative bias, and it seams almost the entire GOP was blindsided. That wasn't Romney's fault as well? Really??
You cannot make effective decisions when you are operating in an information black hole. So I would place the blame on the GOP leadership. Those guys should they *lead*, and not simply respond to incentive structures given to them.
If the GOP doesn't do some serious navel-gazing, and make accurate changes to its operations, then the next election will be another huge expensive failure.
It comes down to using information accurately. So you gotta ask, "what REALLY went wrong". Not just point at the fall guy and resume the posture of faultlessness.
It's all about money
The GOP and super-pacs spent about 3x as much per vote as the democrats. I am sure the analysis of how the money was spent would be fascinating. I would love to know why the GOP effort was so inefficient. My guess is that there is a crisis of leadership. After-all Reince Priebus is still the RNC chairman, and he clearly had no idea what was about to happen before the election.
If you read the report, you'll note that energy bills do change when incentive structures are set.
GHG market, which has obfuscated, irrational and un-achievable goals.
The nay sayers will just quietly move on to something else when they are proven wrong. Watch.
I would be amazed, if ever in the history of insurance companies, that a study of risk calculated that they could lower their premiums.
Free market. If the premiums were easy to calculate, then actuaries would be out on the curb. It is the math that allows insurance companies to offer the most while remaining solvent.
You know, people actually quantify things and then apply statistical methods, in order to see if they are deceiving themselves. You will (almost) always be able to look backwards in history to find a single worse event. The frequency and intensity of events is what matters in a statistical sense.
Scientists have done the math and drawn scientific conclusions on increasing extreme weather events.
But forget them.
The US military did their own analysis an noted the trends in extreme weather events, and have characterised it as a national security problem.
But forget them.
Insurance companies have actuaries who spend their lives studying and calculating risk, and they work out the rates on insurance policies. And the verdict is that premiums will need to go up.
But forget them.
There was a big hurricane in 1938 in NYC.
See what you did there?
Yes, we should pay the price so rich environmental scientologists can scurry off to Rio in the wintertime more often and not feel guilty about it.
Yep, california's budget troubles are because of rich scientists who love visiting Rio. You know there is an emissions trading scheme in the North East of the USA. And Europe. The evidence is in on how "destructive" and "expensive" they are. Look it up.
As if cap and trade can actually be considered 'trying'.
Gee, you must be a well studied economist!!! You must have studied historic emissions trading programs, and how they were not successful like most people believe, and that the data is just plain wrong!!!
Maybe we're the generation that realized through scientific discovery, that there are limitations to resources.
Nah, that was generations ago.
any foreign nation leader
Germany, Denmark, and yes, China.
If you think the scumbags in Sacramento gives a rat's ass about anything but their own interests you are deluded to the point of mental retardation
Now that's a misanthropic model of human nature. Probably says more about you then anything else ;)
Can you quantify "a lot more frequent"?
in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy
How do you know that?
I haven't written "Holy Crap" so many times in years.
Hope this helps
So let's be blunt about it, shall we? Energy moves from higher levels to lower levels on average.
Fixed that for you. Gee, you must be some sort of college drop-out with anger issues.
Telling people they may have to change their ways a little is a far more difficult than simply proving the fossil fuel industries wrong.
That is really part of the scare-mongering from the denialists -- the true alarmists. There will be some changes no matter what, but climate action isn't really going to cost a hell of a lot if we do something about it 30 years go, and we can still do a lot today for pennies.
Oh, it's Jane Q Public, competent contrarian number one. And who is that co-researcher you are talking about? Let me guess, there is something completely misread or taken out of context, or perhaps completely absent. But the rumours do paint a flattering picture about your bizarre distortion land, so the /must/ be true, since everyone else is wrong. N'est-ce pas??
They are dull-witted. They think they are right, like we all do. The story-line they tell themselves is a convenient and flattering one, just like us. Every politician needs a sugar-daddy (in the absence of public funding).
and this undoubtedly involves a shake up in the economy,
This is economic scare-mongering that is not born out by real-world evidence. Germany is doing it. China is doing it. Heck, 20% of the US economy is doing it (the greater New York area), and their economy is /growing/ relative to the rest of the USA, despite the apparent "burden" of a carbon tax. In fact, eletricity bills have come down for residents and businesses.
Alarmists indeed.
And it isn't the first time the economic scare-mongering was used to stave of regulation. Same happened with acid rain, and the ozone hole. Regulation was going to ruin the economy (esp. on acid rain). It was all baloney, of course.
Yeah... it is a great mystery, but the bible says less than 10k years, which is obviously wrong, and obviously what is being fished for in the question. And to think that religion is really about seeking truth. I went to the creation museum -- intellectual vapid bunch if ever there was. Funny how the "holy" can be so disingenuous about their motives. I'm sure Jesus would tear town their temple and decry the corruption of the Pharisees.
he is just another person paid to read crystal balls.
Paid by the Koch brothers.
Follow the money -- science is a CONSPIRACY!!!!!
the claims were exaggerated, studies were forged, and statistics were manipulated.
And you know this because you read some conservative blogs? Gee, you must be really educated on the subject. Unlike those full-time scientists who have spend their life studying it. They're just a bunch of commies.
Muller was never a skeptic.
The minute he said something you disagreed with, he become "biased".