Except the solutions agreed upon by the politicians actually wind up using MORE energy, and they find that the only way to really slow CO2 output is to create an economic slowdown, something that winds up killing off a large portion of the population that is already on the brink.
Not all science is modeling. In fact, climate science is pretty much the only one that relies so heavily on it. Well, that and economics. *Looks at the economy* Hmm, I think they might be suffering from a similar problem. They imbued their algorithms with their own biases.
Yes, this is a REAL concern, rather than this CO2 nonsense. NOx, CO, and smog are all REAL health hazards.
You know, it's funny. I got modded troll something like a thousand times for talking about how my own calculations showed that CO2 literally couldn't cause global warming, because the heat capacity is simply too low. In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 decrease the net heat capacity of the atmosphere (by a vanishingly small margin). Suddenly, this new data backs me up. Funny how a chemist in a totally unrelated field can show how an entire branch of science is BS. Too bad the only reaction that anyone can come up with to such challenges is "UR N IDOT".
The best way to destroy any industry is to set profit against the welfare of the customer. That is exactly what the fascist US health care system has done, and what the socialized healthcare systems are doing. The only way to make a sustainable system is to align the interests of both parties. In the US, the way to do this is to open up the process for certifying doctors. This will drastically shorten the amount of time they have to spend in school, drastically reducing their student debt load, and drastically increasing the numbers, drastically decreasing the costs. This is the way it was in the US and the rest of the Western world a hundred years ago. ANYONE could afford a doctor.
I suspect that a similar procedure would need to be followed in those nations that have socialized healthcare, though that likely won't happen until after their entire system collapses in on itself (like what is happening now in the US).
And yes, fascist is the correct word, because private companies, in this case the AMA, also known as "the rich old doctors association", gets to set "guidelines" that are given force of law in the US. They use these "guidelines" to continually squeeze the numbers of new doctors, to prevent competition. It is a merger of government and corporate power, and it has devastated US healthcare access. They use advancing technology as an excuse, but that is BS. Technology makes treatments CHEAPER, not more expensive. Sure, some things that were untreatable before might have new expensive treatments, but free market forces would soon bring them down, just as they have brought down the costs of cosmetic surgery, and of Lasik eye surgery.
I pay for my own insurance. I don't want to have insurance, but my employer forces me to. I used to just have catastrophic coverage with a health savings account. That paid me to shop around for the lowest price, and allowed me to pay the (much lower) cash rates, but my employers new insurance policy doesn't carry those types of plans.
The question you should ask yourself is "Why am I so fucking ignorant of the way the world works?" Then ask "What is a charity?" Then you can ask "what is the real cause of rising medical costs?" "Why could my grandfather afford to have a doctor that made house calls on a plumber's wage with no insurance, but now no-one can afford to go in to their offices without government assistance or extremely expensive plans?" Then ask "what does a bureaucracy do?"
But you won't ask yourself any of those questions. You would prefer to rail on and on against the thorns, while never bothering to look for the root.
I guess you have never been to a private practice doctor's office before. You know all those ladies that sit in the front office? They are tasked mainly with filing insurance paperwork, including Medicaid. Practices that only take cash have ONE person out front to greet patients, answer phone calls, and deal with the money.
Also, you are an idiot. Any and all medical practices that don't take insurance have lower rates. Look at the cost of cosmetic surgery, or Lasik and related eye surgeries. The prices go down EVERY YEAR. There is a reason for that. But you don't want to see it, because you are just another mouth breathing government worshiping sheep.
Ah yes, another person totally unable to read between the lines. In advanced societies, children are a burden. They CONSUME resources. They have to be fed, clothed, given their own room, and schooled. In agrarian societies, children are a resource. They allow for better exploitation of the land. They PRODUCE resources.
Humans are economic calculation machines. These demographic trends make LITERALLY PERFECT sense, at least to someone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
WTF are you talking about? There have NOT been "countless" predictions of a peak to human population. There has been one, and it will occur around 2050. Rather, what there have been countless numbers of is predictions of peak RESOURCES, none of which have materialized.
Further, you miss the point when you use income as your only variable. Those lower income people are FARMERS. For farmers, children are a resource. That is, by having more children, they are better able to work their land. Those children don't use gasoline, they don't buy ipods, hell, they don't even buy food from the market. They aren't using up ANY resources. They PRODUCE resources.
Uhh, yeah. Africa is agrarian, dumbass. Agrarian societies require large amounts of children. Agrarian societies do NOT use large amounts of resources. On the contrary, they PRODUCE resources. They have plenty of resources. They just have terrible autocratic thieving and murderous governments.
No more *FREE* medicine for him I think is what you mean. In which case you should stop charging him that portion of taxes. Which will be to his direct benefit, because he can then go get a cheaper rate for medical services by paying cash, and not have to pay for some bureaucrats salary in addition to the medicine he needs.
Socialized medicine is like trying to fill up the shallow end of the pool by taking water from the deep end with a leaky bucket.
My God there's a lot of death worship going on around here.
If you read between the lines, you would see that 8 billion is predicted to be the PEAK. Humans aren't dumb animals. We don't breed when resources are rare. Further, we aren't even going to be resource limited. We also cut back on breeding when children cost to much, as is the case in advanced nations. More nations are becoming that way, shifting from rural subsistence agriculture (which requires a lot of children), to urban division of labor.
People with a lot of kids make the news because they are so RARE, not because they are common. Christ, get a grip, people.
We don't have to. The fearmongering article/summary left out the part where 8 billion is the peak, then demographics shift, and our population falls to between 6 and 7 billion, and stays there.
Yes, cut taxes while simultaneously increasing regulations and then blame the negative effects of one on the other in a method that makes zero sense. The partisan doublethinkers will then prevent any realistic debate from happening forever, and we can continue to steal all the monies forever!
Yes, Bush II was also a liberal (or Obama is a conservative, as he has carried on or "enhanced" every one of Bush II's policies). Just like every republican going back to Reagan. They were traitors.
Maybe someday, people will learn that "both" parties long ago become ONE party with two wings, so that they could eternally blame everything on one side or the other, while the fascists remain in firm control.
And now we finger fuck 96 year old wheelchair bound ladies in the name of "safety". As long as we stand for this crap, we don't deserve either liberty or safety.
I think the preponderance of evidence shows that those two sides are actually the same.
Hmmm, we fish their seas to sterility, and then the locals get pissed and start seizing foreign vessels trespassing in their territorial waters. Solution? KILL EM ALL.
Yes, because those "tribes" summoned all those weapons from the sky. With negroid majicks.
Somalia is literally being invaded CONSTANTLY. Their non-government controlled society is the only type that could every hold up to such an invasion. But then, I guess you'd prefer they just had a strongman in charge stepping on baby skulls like the rest of Africa.
Yeah, Somalia is a great example of functional anarchy much the same way that Serbia was a great example of functional democracy.
Why do racists whites always ignore the thousands of years of history prior to their arrival in a given area? "Native Americans were always nomadic." BS--They had a series of large, sedentary nations, now known as the MIssissippian culture, which collapsed a hundred years prior to the arrival of whites. "Southeast Asia has always been a series of primitive villages". BS again--They had the Khmer Empire, which built the marvelous Angkor Wat, and NUMEROUS other temple complexes.
Fact is, the Somalis (formerly Ethiopians), are among the very very few non-coddled native societies to survive colonialism more or less intact, the others being India and China. Somalia is STILL under assault, however. African crackpots and UN forces have pumped so many guns and supported so many strongmen in the region that they can claim that Somalia's system of civil order leads directly to civil war. Mission accomplished. They know westerners don't study history. At least, not the history of any non-white culture. Should the foreigners ever leave, or give up on their imperialistic desires, you will quickly see Somalia emerge as an African powerhouse of production. Already, they have the best telecommunications infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. But again, the imperialists don't want you to know that.
That's excellent racism there. I guess you missed the part where these are the decentness of the very same people who, along with the Yemenites, stopped the Roman advance into the Horn of Africa.
Why would they try to decapitate their own forces?
The military would do well to learn and understand local customs before trying to invade, even for "humanitarian" reasons. Somalis outside of the "capital" follow Xeer, and as such are literally ungovernable. If they would stop trying to fund strongmen, then would see that the violence would abate, and Somalia would return to the state it was in for the 1100 odd years prior to the start of colonialism, which is to say, the freest, most peaceful society on Earth.
For some reason, whites don't like thinking about that, and love to point out the failures of their system of near-anarchy, but totally ignore their long history of success under the exact same system prior to the arrival of occupying forces from the west, occupying forces who were NEVER able to control the countryside, just like today.
What do you NEED to use military force for, other than self defense? Why do we NEED to be in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
How does the rest of the world comport itself without invading any nation that has oil and doesn't want to play ball? Which terrorist organization is going to want to attack us when we are no longer dropping bombs on their villages and propping up crackpot dictators around the world? Al Qaeda would vanish like a fart in the wind just like the old rum runners vanished after the end of prohibition.
Russia was only "concerned" about US nukes back in the day because we had tank divisions all around their borders. We were only concerned with Russian nukes because we were (and still are) a nation of warmongers. Notice how no-one cares about Russias nuke arsenal any more, except to keep it away from terrorists? The reason for that is because they no longer have a conventional military to invade anywhere. Their nukes are the only shield they need against foreign invasion.
And you far underestimate the nuclear capacities of France, Britain, China, and Israel. Each and every one of them is fully capable of a MAD response. And all of them together spend less than a quarter of what we spend on military. The reason for that is *DUNDUNDUN* their nuclear arsenals.
Wow, you have a severe and fundamental lack of understanding of history.
The Cold War wasn't about nukes. The Cold War was KEPT COLD by nukes. That is the one and only thing that stopped tanks from rolling on both sides. Russia wouldn't have cared one whit about our defensive nuclear arsenal if we didn't have thousands upon thousands of tanks on their borders. Sort of like how nobody really cares how many nukes the French have. You quite clearly know their purpose--they are there to keep foreign invasion at bay.
Everybody always screams about nuclear war, but it never happened. Nukes were used in one war, and that was enough. I don't know if you people have noticed, but the rate of change of maps worldwide has been slowing down an awful lot since the introduction of nukes. Pretty much the only changes we see now are either reunions or balkanizations.
That's just dumb. If you want to smash, rather than shaving the budget, you would buy more nukes, and nuke delivery systems, and withdraw all the troops we have stationed everywhere. We'd save a trillion dollars a year. You could use the proceeds from that to fund universal health care and a dozen missions to Mars. Or, you know, pay down the debt. Whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the solutions agreed upon by the politicians actually wind up using MORE energy, and they find that the only way to really slow CO2 output is to create an economic slowdown, something that winds up killing off a large portion of the population that is already on the brink.
Not all science is modeling. In fact, climate science is pretty much the only one that relies so heavily on it. Well, that and economics. *Looks at the economy* Hmm, I think they might be suffering from a similar problem. They imbued their algorithms with their own biases.
Yes, this is a REAL concern, rather than this CO2 nonsense. NOx, CO, and smog are all REAL health hazards.
You know, it's funny. I got modded troll something like a thousand times for talking about how my own calculations showed that CO2 literally couldn't cause global warming, because the heat capacity is simply too low. In fact, increasing atmospheric CO2 decrease the net heat capacity of the atmosphere (by a vanishingly small margin). Suddenly, this new data backs me up. Funny how a chemist in a totally unrelated field can show how an entire branch of science is BS. Too bad the only reaction that anyone can come up with to such challenges is "UR N IDOT".
The best way to destroy any industry is to set profit against the welfare of the customer. That is exactly what the fascist US health care system has done, and what the socialized healthcare systems are doing. The only way to make a sustainable system is to align the interests of both parties. In the US, the way to do this is to open up the process for certifying doctors. This will drastically shorten the amount of time they have to spend in school, drastically reducing their student debt load, and drastically increasing the numbers, drastically decreasing the costs. This is the way it was in the US and the rest of the Western world a hundred years ago. ANYONE could afford a doctor.
I suspect that a similar procedure would need to be followed in those nations that have socialized healthcare, though that likely won't happen until after their entire system collapses in on itself (like what is happening now in the US).
And yes, fascist is the correct word, because private companies, in this case the AMA, also known as "the rich old doctors association", gets to set "guidelines" that are given force of law in the US. They use these "guidelines" to continually squeeze the numbers of new doctors, to prevent competition. It is a merger of government and corporate power, and it has devastated US healthcare access. They use advancing technology as an excuse, but that is BS. Technology makes treatments CHEAPER, not more expensive. Sure, some things that were untreatable before might have new expensive treatments, but free market forces would soon bring them down, just as they have brought down the costs of cosmetic surgery, and of Lasik eye surgery.
I pay for my own insurance. I don't want to have insurance, but my employer forces me to. I used to just have catastrophic coverage with a health savings account. That paid me to shop around for the lowest price, and allowed me to pay the (much lower) cash rates, but my employers new insurance policy doesn't carry those types of plans.
The question you should ask yourself is "Why am I so fucking ignorant of the way the world works?" Then ask "What is a charity?" Then you can ask "what is the real cause of rising medical costs?" "Why could my grandfather afford to have a doctor that made house calls on a plumber's wage with no insurance, but now no-one can afford to go in to their offices without government assistance or extremely expensive plans?" Then ask "what does a bureaucracy do?"
But you won't ask yourself any of those questions. You would prefer to rail on and on against the thorns, while never bothering to look for the root.
I guess you have never been to a private practice doctor's office before. You know all those ladies that sit in the front office? They are tasked mainly with filing insurance paperwork, including Medicaid. Practices that only take cash have ONE person out front to greet patients, answer phone calls, and deal with the money.
Also, you are an idiot. Any and all medical practices that don't take insurance have lower rates. Look at the cost of cosmetic surgery, or Lasik and related eye surgeries. The prices go down EVERY YEAR. There is a reason for that. But you don't want to see it, because you are just another mouth breathing government worshiping sheep.
Ah yes, another person totally unable to read between the lines. In advanced societies, children are a burden. They CONSUME resources. They have to be fed, clothed, given their own room, and schooled. In agrarian societies, children are a resource. They allow for better exploitation of the land. They PRODUCE resources.
Humans are economic calculation machines. These demographic trends make LITERALLY PERFECT sense, at least to someone with more than two brain cells to rub together.
WTF are you talking about? There have NOT been "countless" predictions of a peak to human population. There has been one, and it will occur around 2050. Rather, what there have been countless numbers of is predictions of peak RESOURCES, none of which have materialized.
Further, you miss the point when you use income as your only variable. Those lower income people are FARMERS. For farmers, children are a resource. That is, by having more children, they are better able to work their land. Those children don't use gasoline, they don't buy ipods, hell, they don't even buy food from the market. They aren't using up ANY resources. They PRODUCE resources.
Uhh, yeah. Africa is agrarian, dumbass. Agrarian societies require large amounts of children. Agrarian societies do NOT use large amounts of resources. On the contrary, they PRODUCE resources. They have plenty of resources. They just have terrible autocratic thieving and murderous governments.
Chuck Norris once did a kung-fu workout, on January 17th, 1994 in Northridge, California.
"How to Tap Voicemail Accounts for Fun and Profit" by Rupert Murdoch
It's not mine, I swear!
No more *FREE* medicine for him I think is what you mean. In which case you should stop charging him that portion of taxes. Which will be to his direct benefit, because he can then go get a cheaper rate for medical services by paying cash, and not have to pay for some bureaucrats salary in addition to the medicine he needs.
Socialized medicine is like trying to fill up the shallow end of the pool by taking water from the deep end with a leaky bucket.
But of course, the fascist medical system we have now isn't good either: http://mises.org/daily/4276
My God there's a lot of death worship going on around here.
If you read between the lines, you would see that 8 billion is predicted to be the PEAK. Humans aren't dumb animals. We don't breed when resources are rare. Further, we aren't even going to be resource limited. We also cut back on breeding when children cost to much, as is the case in advanced nations. More nations are becoming that way, shifting from rural subsistence agriculture (which requires a lot of children), to urban division of labor.
People with a lot of kids make the news because they are so RARE, not because they are common. Christ, get a grip, people.
We don't have to. The fearmongering article/summary left out the part where 8 billion is the peak, then demographics shift, and our population falls to between 6 and 7 billion, and stays there.
Yes, cut taxes while simultaneously increasing regulations and then blame the negative effects of one on the other in a method that makes zero sense. The partisan doublethinkers will then prevent any realistic debate from happening forever, and we can continue to steal all the monies forever!
Yes, Bush II was also a liberal (or Obama is a conservative, as he has carried on or "enhanced" every one of Bush II's policies). Just like every republican going back to Reagan. They were traitors.
Maybe someday, people will learn that "both" parties long ago become ONE party with two wings, so that they could eternally blame everything on one side or the other, while the fascists remain in firm control.
And now we finger fuck 96 year old wheelchair bound ladies in the name of "safety". As long as we stand for this crap, we don't deserve either liberty or safety.
I think the preponderance of evidence shows that those two sides are actually the same.
Hmmm, we fish their seas to sterility, and then the locals get pissed and start seizing foreign vessels trespassing in their territorial waters. Solution? KILL EM ALL.
Yes, because those "tribes" summoned all those weapons from the sky. With negroid majicks.
Somalia is literally being invaded CONSTANTLY. Their non-government controlled society is the only type that could every hold up to such an invasion. But then, I guess you'd prefer they just had a strongman in charge stepping on baby skulls like the rest of Africa.
Yeah, Somalia is a great example of functional anarchy much the same way that Serbia was a great example of functional democracy.
Why do racists whites always ignore the thousands of years of history prior to their arrival in a given area? "Native Americans were always nomadic." BS--They had a series of large, sedentary nations, now known as the MIssissippian culture, which collapsed a hundred years prior to the arrival of whites. "Southeast Asia has always been a series of primitive villages". BS again--They had the Khmer Empire, which built the marvelous Angkor Wat, and NUMEROUS other temple complexes.
Fact is, the Somalis (formerly Ethiopians), are among the very very few non-coddled native societies to survive colonialism more or less intact, the others being India and China. Somalia is STILL under assault, however. African crackpots and UN forces have pumped so many guns and supported so many strongmen in the region that they can claim that Somalia's system of civil order leads directly to civil war. Mission accomplished. They know westerners don't study history. At least, not the history of any non-white culture. Should the foreigners ever leave, or give up on their imperialistic desires, you will quickly see Somalia emerge as an African powerhouse of production. Already, they have the best telecommunications infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa. But again, the imperialists don't want you to know that.
That's excellent racism there. I guess you missed the part where these are the decentness of the very same people who, along with the Yemenites, stopped the Roman advance into the Horn of Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axum
Why would they try to decapitate their own forces?
The military would do well to learn and understand local customs before trying to invade, even for "humanitarian" reasons. Somalis outside of the "capital" follow Xeer, and as such are literally ungovernable. If they would stop trying to fund strongmen, then would see that the violence would abate, and Somalia would return to the state it was in for the 1100 odd years prior to the start of colonialism, which is to say, the freest, most peaceful society on Earth.
For some reason, whites don't like thinking about that, and love to point out the failures of their system of near-anarchy, but totally ignore their long history of success under the exact same system prior to the arrival of occupying forces from the west, occupying forces who were NEVER able to control the countryside, just like today.
What do you NEED to use military force for, other than self defense? Why do we NEED to be in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
How does the rest of the world comport itself without invading any nation that has oil and doesn't want to play ball? Which terrorist organization is going to want to attack us when we are no longer dropping bombs on their villages and propping up crackpot dictators around the world? Al Qaeda would vanish like a fart in the wind just like the old rum runners vanished after the end of prohibition.
Wow, are you a wizard from the future?
Russia was only "concerned" about US nukes back in the day because we had tank divisions all around their borders. We were only concerned with Russian nukes because we were (and still are) a nation of warmongers. Notice how no-one cares about Russias nuke arsenal any more, except to keep it away from terrorists? The reason for that is because they no longer have a conventional military to invade anywhere. Their nukes are the only shield they need against foreign invasion.
And you far underestimate the nuclear capacities of France, Britain, China, and Israel. Each and every one of them is fully capable of a MAD response. And all of them together spend less than a quarter of what we spend on military. The reason for that is *DUNDUNDUN* their nuclear arsenals.
Wow, you have a severe and fundamental lack of understanding of history.
The Cold War wasn't about nukes. The Cold War was KEPT COLD by nukes. That is the one and only thing that stopped tanks from rolling on both sides. Russia wouldn't have cared one whit about our defensive nuclear arsenal if we didn't have thousands upon thousands of tanks on their borders. Sort of like how nobody really cares how many nukes the French have. You quite clearly know their purpose--they are there to keep foreign invasion at bay.
Everybody always screams about nuclear war, but it never happened. Nukes were used in one war, and that was enough. I don't know if you people have noticed, but the rate of change of maps worldwide has been slowing down an awful lot since the introduction of nukes. Pretty much the only changes we see now are either reunions or balkanizations.
That's just dumb. If you want to smash, rather than shaving the budget, you would buy more nukes, and nuke delivery systems, and withdraw all the troops we have stationed everywhere. We'd save a trillion dollars a year. You could use the proceeds from that to fund universal health care and a dozen missions to Mars. Or, you know, pay down the debt. Whatever.