What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Boston]

for those who have difficulty with the science here is a more simplified version

Overall, it is true that sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing.

Around the peninsula, where there is a lot of warming [PDF], the ice is retreating. This is the area of the recent and dramatic Larsen B and Ross ice shelf breakups.

But the rest of the continent has not shown any clear warming or cooling and sea ice has increased over the last decade or so.

This is not actually a big surprise.

In fact, it is completely in line with model expectations that CO2-dominated forcing will have a disproportionately large effect in the north. The reasons lie in the much larger amount of land in the northern hemisphere and the fact that the ocean's thermal inertia and ability to mix delay any temperature signal from the ongoing absorption of heat. The local geography also plays a dominating role. The circumpolar current acts as a buffer preventing warm water from the tropics from transporting heat to the South Pole, a buffer that does not exist in the north. You can read some more details about that here.

Does it "balance out" in the end? Not really. Sea ice in the Arctic is reaching dramatic record lows. There are other components of the cryosphere that we can look at as well, permafrost, the Greenland ice sheet, global glacier mass, and these all carry the Global Warming signal.

One must look at the balance of evidence, not just those bits one likes. And this balance is clearly in agreement with all other indicators that warming is real and rapid.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Like roads, bridges, protection of national borders and law enforcement, all of which has been sadly neglected for decades now.

nowhere in the constitution are roads mentioned

but one can make a strong inference about healthcare

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Boston]

we dont have health care, what has been legislated is nothing more than the car insurance model with the term health stuck into it

it presents the greatest benefit to the fewest people
namely the insurance companies

overall it will fail or be forced to change dramatically once people realize that failure to pay up results in a fine at tax time that can and will be attached to your tax bill. The end result of that is that if after 3 years you have still no caught up on your health insurance tax your house can be seized.

great plan
soon as a few homes are lost there will be changes and fast

I hope

B

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Boston

we dont have health care, what has been legislated is nothing more than the car insurance model with the term health stuck into it

it presents the greatest benefit to the fewest people
namely the insurance companies

overall it will fail or be forced to change dramatically once people realize that failure to pay up results in a fine at tax time that can and will be attached to your tax bill. The end result of that is that if after 3 years you have still no caught up on your health insurance tax your house can be seized.

great plan
soon as a few homes are lost there will be changes and fast

I hope

B

I always thought of it as just a foot in the door down that liberal slippery slope of the gov actually doing something for the people for once

[alanrockwood]

Originally Posted by wardd

nowhere in the constitution are roads mentioned

but one can make a strong inference about healthcare

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wardd, before making statements on what the constitution says you should read what it actually says. It does mention roads. I read the very words myself yesterday.

[wardd]

roads, in what context?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by alanrockwood

Wardd, before making statements on what the constitution says you should read what it actually says. It does mention roads. I read the very words myself yesterday.

I'll save him the trouble of actually having to read it.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads; etc.

However, I seriously doubt they they intended the definition of 'post roads' to include interstate freeways, any more than they intended the regulation of 'interstate commerce' in Clause 3 to include national gun control laws.

[wardd]

people don't understand it was a different country, a different people, it would be alien to us today

and when the constitution was written not all adults could legally own arms

it was written with a wink and a nod

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Boston

we dont have health care, what has been legislated is nothing more than the car insurance model with the term health stuck into it

it presents the greatest benefit to the fewest people
namely the insurance companies

overall it will fail or be forced to change dramatically once people realize that failure to pay up results in a fine at tax time that can and will be attached to your tax bill. The end result of that is that if after 3 years you have still no caught up on your health insurance tax your house can be seized.

great plan
soon as a few homes are lost there will be changes and fast

I hope

B

I hope you realize that's complete nonsense, Boston. There will be no homes lost for failure to pay for health insurance. Politicians aren't that suicidal....

However, granting universal coverage that includes pre-existing conditions pretty much means you also have to mandate that everyone carry insurance. You can't realistically have one without the other.

Otherwise, there's no incentive to pay for health insurance unless and until you actually need it. It becomes the equivalent of waiting until you have a fender bender, then buying an insurance policy and demanding the insurance company fix your car. It negates the underlying premise of insurance -- which is for all to share the costs, so that those who wind up needing it aren't ruined.

Despite claims that it was invented by a guy named Lloyd in London, the basic concept of insurance can be found in the Hammurabi Code, dating back to 1792 BC.

[wardd]

there is no rational business model in which the health insurance companies can be profitable having to cover everyone at anywhere near affordable rates

eventually there will be universal health care

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by wardd

there is no rational business model in which the health insurance companies can be profitable having to cover everyone at anywhere near affordable rates

eventually there will be universal health care

It would have saved a lot of time and trouble to just go there to begin with.

But you need to keep in mind that health insurance is now embedded in our economic system, and we have to tread carefully before eliminating it. For one thing, think about how many people it employs. What would throwing all those people onto the job market suddenly do to the economy, the unemployment rate, unemployment insurance, etc.?

But I disagree with you when you say an insurance company can't be profitable with universal coverage at reasonable rates. They can, if everyone gets insurance. You know....the whole 'universal coverage thing'? That's what it's all about.

If insurance companies can't survive while offering it, neither can a government in the long run. And I refuse to believe the alternative: that we can't 'afford' health care for everyone, and should simply resign ourselves to letting people who can't pay for it die.

[wardd]

everybody eventually gets old and sick and the costs of that will exceed what they have paid in premiums

over time it makes no economic sense

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by wardd

everybody eventually gets old and sick and the costs of that will exceed what they have paid in premiums

over time it makes no economic sense

In the first place, that isn't true. Most of my older relatives lived long, healthy lives, then died with a minimum amount of muss and fuss.

In the second place, if it makes no economic sense for an insurance company, the government can't afford it either. Government money isn't free; it comes from the same taxpayers who under this law have to buy mandatory private insurance.

Do you think we should go back to square one instead, and just let people die if they can't pay for their healthcare? That's the alternative to billing people for it one way or another...whether it be through taxes or private policies.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by troy2000

In the first place, that isn't true. Most of my older relatives lived long, healthy lives, then died with a minimum amount of muss and fuss.

In the second place, if it makes no economic sense for an insurance company, the government can't afford it either. Government money isn't free; it comes from the same taxpayers who under this law have to buy mandatory private insurance.

Do you think we should go back to square one instead, and just let people die if they can't pay for their healthcare? That's the alternative to billing people for it one way or another...whether it be through taxes or private policies.

the military is a non profit making enterprise


there are things that only we collectively can do that aren't profit motivated

in the not too far distant future there will not be enough jobs for everyone that wants one, computers, automation, automated manufacturing, and a 3D printer in every home.

when you order something you will be ordering the file to manufacture it in your home, sounds scify but it's closer than you may think

r&d uses 3D printers to prototype plastic parts now, the navy is researching ways to do it in metal so parts wont have to be stocked on ships at sea

most people see things in isolation as in this or that instead of as a system of functions creating an outcome

when the outcome requires fewer people what's to be done with them?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by wardd

the military is a non profit making enterprise


there are things that only we collectively can do that aren't profit motivated

in the not too far distant future there will not be enough jobs for everyone that wants one, computers, automation, automated manufacturing, and a 3D printer in every home.

when you order something you will be ordering the file to manufacture it in your home, sounds scify but it's closer than you may think

r&d uses 3D printers to prototype plastic parts now, the navy is researching ways to do it in metal so parts wont have to be stocked on ships at sea

most people see things in isolation as in this or that instead of as a system of functions creating an outcome

when the outcome requires fewer people what's to be done with them?

Are you claiming the average person is about to become redundant, and transform into a drain on society instead of contributing to it? Bushwa.....where's a hitwithrock smilie when you really need one?

If that were true, modern society would be doomed no matter what we do.