Not necessarily. The particulate blocks sun, which is cooling. OTOH, it settles on and melts ice at the poles, stripping albedo. Carbon black might be a far worse problem than what's alleged for CO2.
The models are almost useless though--they aren't predictive beyond a scale of months. After that, they're uncorrelated.
The feedback can as easily be negative, as it appears by its behavior. No one can say, for example, whether we get a little hotter, have a couple more clouds, and it balances.
Ages ago CO2 concentration was many-fold today's. Flora and fauna thrived; diversity exploded. It didn't run away, and in fact, it later collapsed into a series of ice ages. Brrr.
That doesn't sound anything like a runaway / threshold / tipping point or positive feedback system anywhere in sight. Not to mention that temps have stalled for a couple decades, none of which is consistent with the assumption.
Every plant that grows will die; that has been going on for some time now. When they die, the carbon becomes soot or CO2, with some small fraction sequestered underground.
Soot from forest fires has been happening forever, and it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere. What's bad is extra fine long-life particulates created by burning coal and diesel. Nasty stuff, kills people and melts snow.
Melting snow is a sin.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
Only in the very short term, until they rain out. Then you are left with the greenhouse gasses and the settled particulates you mention below.
Don't see how it can be negative, even if clouds worked as you suggest (which the historical record contradicts AIUI) it would just tend to reduce the sensitivity to CO2 not reverse it.
Diversity happens when the then prevalent species are wiped out leaving freshly vacant niches.
Life thrived over geological time, that is not much use to us or our children etc. Species adapt over generations (or not). And the anthropogenic changes are much faster than many historic ones I think, a doubling of CO2 in a blink of an eye.
The shorter-term positive feedbacks are eventually stabilised, over geological time.
No the ice ages absolutely look like that, in fact their existence is good evidence of positive feedback. The tiny effect of changes in insolation would otherwise not be able to produce such enormous swings in climate.
Sure it is (if this is even true) the numbers are noisy over this scale and actual temperature changes are small due to the long lag times for the effects.
s not easy to measure. Volcanoes do emit CO2, but not enough to be worth wo rrying about - you need something like the Deccan Traps eruption, some 65 m illion years ago, to make a significant difference. Reduction of plankton m ight make a difference, but how do you measure it?
e we expected to take the Indonesian one's more seriously?
important and not less to reduce greenhouse emmisions.
ettles on and melts ice at the poles, stripping albedo. Carbon black might be a far worse problem than what's alleged for CO2.
That's unlikely. The polar area is relatively small and illuminated side-on . And the albedo change isn't large - the polar ice-caps and snowfields sti ll look white from space.
beyond a scale of months. After that, they're uncorrelated.
You are confusing atmospheric circulation models with radiation balance mod els.
The only tricky feature in radiation balance models is cloud cover, and for that you can use historical averages.
For useful predictions of weather pattern changes, you do need atmospheric circulation models - not weather models which aren't predictive over period s of more than a few weeks, but - as John van Neumann pointed out back in t he 1955 - general circulation models aren't limited in the same way.
formatting link
one can say, for example, whether we get a little hotter, have a couple mo re clouds, and it balances.
Actually, they can, but James Arthur won't believe them.
; diversity exploded. It didn't run away, and in fact, it later collapsed into a series of ice ages. Brrr.
There's no doubt that the planet and it flora and fauna would survive globa l warming. The catch is that this sort of warming makes for a different env ironment, and a lot of species go extinct - and a lot of new ones evolve - in the process of adopting to that new environment. Our agriculture is base d on plants that are well-adapted to the world as it is, and we're on cours e for a population crash if we don't mend our ways.
The appearance of ice ages depended on continental drift - the Arctic Ocean became sufficiently close to land-locked to ice over, and surrounding land areas could become ice-covered.
positive feedback system anywhere in sight. Not to mention that temps hav e stalled for a couple decades, none of which is consistent with the assump tion.
The flips from ice ages to interglacials are perfectly representative of th e runaway / threshold / tipping points that James Arthur finds so incredibl e.
The "pause" in global warming over the last decade is just the Atlantic Mul tidecadal Oscillation doing it's thing - as it has done before, as can be s een in the temperature record for the last century or so.
Now that we've got the Argo buoys out there monitoring the deep ocean curre nts we should be able to develop a better model of what's actually going on , not that James Arthur's ideological preoccupations will allow him to unde rstand any of it.
so of ice (Quebec under two), and it's been warming ever since.
Which is to say, the planet was in an ice age at the time, and since then i t has flipped over into an interglacial.
It's been doing that very roughly every 100,000 years or so for the past se veral million years.
Although James Arthur likes to deny it, we now know pretty exactly how the switch between ice ages and and inter-glacials happens. The understanding i s essentially a by-product of the work on anthropogenic global warming (whi ch Jim Thompson wants to write off as some kind of fraud). George W. Bush d oesn't come into it.
Recent work suggests that this inter-glacial was going to be relatively lon g, even before we started injecting extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
It will take a good 800 years before the atmospheric and oceanic CO2 levels get back into balance, but the next ice age would probably not have shown up for another 50,000 years.
rtment back in the mid 90's, when this all started.
pretty simple. It didn't take too much to blow them up.
Computerised climate models go back to 1955. If the models being played wit h at UCI were "pretty simple", the people running them hadn't read the lite rature.
r models, and the temperature skyrocketed! It would be a disaster!!!!
Meanwhile the Antarctic and Greenland ice-core data showed how CO2 levels v aried between ice ages and interglacials. The "little blip" people had clea rly got it wrong. If you were around UCI at the time, you should have heard about this - it got written up all over the place.
sive universities.
Probably because their models fitted the historical record.
rgers.
Because their models didn't.
! Doom! Despair! Agony on me!!!!
The ice core data did make it clear that rising CO2 levels did explain a lo t of the previously incomprehensible difference between ice ages and interg lacials. Albedo changes also explained part of the difference, but not enou gh.
consultations with movers and shakers.
Because their models made sense of the historical record.
humiliated by all means possible.
Because their results were incompatible with the historical record.
anyone that accused the emporor of nakedness is given the axe.
Says someone who clearly hasn't understood the significance of the ice core results.
I'm afraid that it's your understanding that has more holes than fine Swiss cheese, and your claims that need to be given the axe.
This is the denialist mantra. It's a formula that saved the tobacco industr y from its just desserts for a decade or two, and the same people who told you that smoking couldn't be proved to damage your health are now telling y ou that more CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't warm the planet.
Possibly, depending on how fine they are and how high they wind up in the atmosphere. So much of this depends on , most of which is either unknown or made up.
formatting link
A buddy of mine's life-long best friend worked on the models. It was his career. I asked him some questions and my pal got the answers.
He said it was a crock. The models weren't predictive at all past some number of months, becoming completely uncorrelated with observations (i.e., physical reality) within a year or so. He scoffed at idjiot Dilbert-type PHB politicians making
50-year projections with his models.
But, that was his job and those were his bosses, so that's what he did. Don't contradict, said he, or they'd run you off and ruin you too. Vicious.
Brilliant mathematician, according to my pal, best he'd ever seen.
He said a lot of other stuff, like pointing out that the alleged warming wasn't even yet statistically remarkable, only an x-sigma event (I don't recall 'x' other than "small"), perfectly statistically expected over time.
He described the overall trend as unmistakeably natural warming, with an AGW component that was too buried in the noise to confirm, much less measure.
Clouds were a particular unsolved problem, since no one could predict their formation, distribution, or effect, yet they are an order of magnitude more important that the entire alleged AGW forcing, (roughly 80W/m^2 vs.
1-6W/m^2, IIRC). Cloud uncertainty by itself overwhelms the entire posited AGW forcing.
He pretty well gave Charlie E.'s same account of how the models started.
At first all their climate models ramped and latched at the rails, reaching either boiling lead or frozen atmosphere temps.
So, they started tweaking and twisting all the knobs and dials, adding mechanisms and processes (i.e., losses and feedbacks) until that didn't happen, and proclaimed it solved.
If you read the model descriptions (I've posted links before) the assumptions are absurd on their face, assuming stuff like static vegetation, ice, and more.
And, as amply documented here in days past, the GCMs aren't independent models that confirm one another, agreeing based on independent simulations of actual physical processes, but are cross-contaminated by exchanging parameters, then actively tweaked into consensus.
It's crap.
Or when conditions are especially conducive to life, living, and metabolism. On Earth, that means warmer, not colder. There aren't many jungles at the poles, but lots of those and more at the equator.
It's a combination of conditions where life was not only possible, but rather excellent. To constantly insist it's a calamity seems insane (not you, the hordes).
And inconsistent. Re: rate of adaptation, below you mention the rapid onset of ice ages as suggesting positive feedback. Okay, why isn't that--sudden cold--a much greater threat to species? And, how'd they manage?
That's the contention, naturally, based on that broad set of assumptions of both facts and mechanisms. I mostly blame George W. Bush.
If real, there are all sorts of obvious benefits to warming from longer growing seasons, to avoiding another 10,000-year global freeze.
The fact that Al Gore's reports never include the obvious benefits tells us we're not being sold, not informed.
So, the models are making predictions they can't; the consequences are alarmist; the solutions, idiotic.
And, the alternative is for billions to live in squalor and disease.
If it gets too hot--and we don't like it--the solution will be spreading a little pixie dust in the atmosphere.
If quick switching in/out of ice ages evidences a threshold, we're already over it. And, the danger would be dropping too low, lest we plunge into an unrecoverable freeze.
That's hand-waving. (Giving something a name) accurate physical model | understanding.
Let's call the 20ky warming trend "the MultiMultiDecadal Relaxation Sawtooth Oscillation." There--that fixed the whole problem.
t or positive feedback system anywhere in sight. Not to mention that temps have stalled for a couple decades, none of which is consistent with the as sumption.
f the runaway / threshold / tipping points that James Arthur finds so incre dible.
y over it. And, the danger would be dropping too low, lest we plunge into an unrecoverable freeze.
formatting link
formatting link
There's no if about it. The process is now reasonably well-understood - if not by the half-wits from whom you seem to get your information about clima te science
Multidecadal Oscillation doing it's thing - as it has done before, as can be seen in the temperature record for the last century or so.
| understanding.
Not at all. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is a long established pat tern of changes in the measured temperatures of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean, much like the El Nino/La Nina oscillations in the Pacific, if slowe r.
The El Nino/La Nina Oscillation has a well-known and well-document effect o n the average surface temperature of the earth - it's fairly obvious that t he Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is even more potent, but we haven't ye t accumulated enough data to dot the i's and cross the t's.
For the accurate physical model you'll have to wait for the Argo buoys to t ell us about the deep ocean currents that drive these oscillations; we alre ady know that they are there but as yet we don't know too much about them.
oth Oscillation." There--that fixed the whole problem.
A frivolous and stupid suggestion. Milankovitch worked out why the ice ages repeated roughly ever 100,000 years around 1920. Explaining how the tiny c hanges in insolation involved could trigger the switch between an ice age a nd an interglacial took longer, and it needed the Antarctic ice cores and t heir information on atmospheric CO2 level changes before the story could be fully fleshed out.
The papers I cite above, about the end of the most recent ice age. demonstr ate how detailed our appreciation of the process now is, and how fatuously ignorant you are.
atmosphere. So much of this depends on , most of which is either unknown or made up.
Nothing in that article says anything about "made up", which is just your d enialist propaganda input - do you get a buck for every such lie that you p ost?
rbon black might be a far worse problem than what's alleged for CO2.
scale of months. After that, they're uncorrelated.
These are the models you've been told about by your incompetent friends - w ho resent the fact that they were - correctly - labelled as incompetent and shown the door.
.
ouple more clouds, and it balances.
Lindzen did say that, it was tested, and proved to be false.
(which the historical record contradicts AIUI) it would just tend to reduce the sensitivity to CO2 not reverse it.
career. I asked him some questions and my pal got the answers.
umber of months, becoming completely uncorrelated with observations (i.e., physical reality) within a year or so.
His models seem to have been a crock.
ons with his models.
Since they were such an obvious crock, they wouldn't be the models on which the politicians are relying.
You don't need fancy climate models to predict problems fifty years ahead. By then the simple radiation balance models predict enough warming to worry anybody with any sense. Not you, obviously.
on't contradict, said he, or they'd run you off and ruin you too. Vicious.
He seems to have been stupid enough to assume that because he couldn't get his models to work, nobody else could get similar models to work - in other words everybody else was going to be duplicating his mistakes. Stopping a nitwit like that from going public can call for a bit of judicious deceptio n - if he was silly enough to believe that his models were the best that co uld be built, he was apparently silly enough to believe that anybody would take the trouble of ruining him and running him off - as if his own shoddy work hadn't done that already.
Brilliant mathematicians aren't always that good on real world matters. The film "A beautiful mind" presents some insights into a particularly sad cas e.
wasn't even yet statistically remarkable, only an x-sigma event (I don't re call 'x' other than "small"), perfectly statistically expected over time.
IIRR the odds that the observed global warming was anthropogenic got to abo ut 20:1, - 95% or sigma=2 - in the early 1990's which is when everybody s tarted taking it seriously.
AGW component that was too buried in the noise to confirm, much less measur e.
formatting link
So where's the "natural warming" coming from? And forget sunspots - they do n't vary the solar output anywhere near enough.
ir formation, distribution, or effect,
Clouds as weather are unpredictable. As climate, their distribution is enti rely predictable, and their effects - mainly scattering visible light and a bsorbing and re-radiating IR - are entirely predictable, and modelled in de tail.
Your friend seems to be not only incompetent, but also somewhat out of date .
AGW forcing, (roughly 80W/m^2 vs. 1-6W/m^2, IIRC). Cloud uncertainty by i tself overwhelms the entire posited AGW forcing.
Only if the cloud uncertainty is based on the predictions of your friend's rotten climate models.
models started.
Since the models started back in 1955, and the general circulation models d id pretty well back then, Charlie E. seems to have been plugged into the sa me crew of incompetents who were trying to re-invent the wheel thirty-odd y ears later.
ng either boiling lead or frozen atmosphere temps.
John von Neumann did better than that in 1955.
chanisms and processes (i.e., losses and feedbacks) until that didn't happe n, and proclaimed it solved.
As opposed to finding out what everybody else had been doing for the previo us thirty years ...
ions are absurd on their face, assuming stuff like static vegetation, ice, and more.
Absurd but useful.
odels that confirm one another, agreeing based on independent simulations o f actual physical processes, but are cross-contaminated by exchanging param eters, then actively tweaked into consensus.
And you know all about this from drunken conversations over dinner with obv ious incompetents.
You don't even know how the ice age/interglacial oscillation works, and you want us to believe that you are an expert on climate modelling - or a leas t well-informed by conversations with experts.
There's a small credibility problem here. You haven't got any.
With respect, I will take the IPCC over a "friend of a friend told me".
[...]
Yes I would fully expect sudden cold would be at least as bad. If there was a consensus that we are about to plunge into another ice age, I would support remedial action like burning up all the fossil fuels. But that is not the case AIUI.
Seems a well supported contention to this non-expert. And to the actual experts.
The actual scientists do analyse both benefits and losses. What Al Gore or the media says is not relevant to the argument.
In your opinion.
An enthusiastic combination of nuclear, solar, wind and hydro power, combined with better conservation could avoid that. And the billions living in squalor and disease don't need anything like current US levels of energy use to lift them out of it.
In fact I think we will end up in that position, hoping for a technological fix. There seems little chance that we will stop burning fossil fuels until it is all gone.
BS > I'm deeply hurt. I'd been even more deeply BS > hurt if Greegor were equipped to recognise BS > any kind of intellect - superior or otherwise. G > If your ego depends on usenet, Slowman, you are in very sad shape indeed. BS > I certainly would be if it did. BS > This does raise the question of why BS > you post here. G > I eagerly await your explanation of such logic. BS > It's obvious enough. You are curious about my motives BS > for posting stuff here, and I'm equally curious about yours. Please explain how your apparent need to use usenet to inflate your ego "raises the question" of why I post here. You seem to substitute academia and intellect for knowledge, experience, human understanding and common sense. Yet you claim you don't have Aspergers. BS > You don't have anything constructive to say, G > When you preach socialism you think that's constructive. BS > Granting the silly idea about "socialism" posted here BS > - you've given a couple of examples later in your BS > response - there's room for constructive comment. BS > I was thinking about the occasional constructive BS > comment about electronic circuit design - most BS > of the more frequent posters here do this BS > (me included). You don't seem to. I'm sorry that I don't live up to your standards. We can't all be pseudo-intellectual useless eaters like you. BS > and spend most of your time decrying "socialism" BS > - which you seem to think equates with BS > communism - as if it was some kind of BS > soul-destroying heresy. G > I haven't said that it EQUATES, per se, though I G > would argue that you aren't going to get away from G > some stigma related to various regimes that called G > themselves socialist. USSR, NSDP(NAZI), Cuba, etc. BS > Guilt by vague association. The countries that BS > practice the kind of socialism that I endorse BS > are all representative democracies. Since most BS > of them use proportional representation to elect BS > their representatives, they end up being a good BS > deal more representative than countries like the BS > US and the UK, which use first-past-the-post BS > voting systems to elect single members for local BS > electorates, squeezing out minority parties and BS > facilitating gerrymandering. Did you expect that my political views hinge on your endorsement and facts of history that you find inconvenient. G > When was the last time I even posted "communism"? BS > You've implied it more or less nonstop. G > But while we're at it, do YOU believe that G > communism "is some kind of soul-destroying heresy"? G > (What religion would it be heretical from?). BS > Historically speaking, communism is heretical BS > branch of socialism, ejected from the mainstream BS > around 1870, for endorsing "the leading role of BS > the party" which is to say, it was advocating BS > oligarchic rather than democratic government. BS > BS > The practical consequences of communism may not BS > have destroyed any souls, but they sure killed BS > off a lot people, and made a lot more decidedly unhappy. They all started out preaching Socialism but it was bait and switch. Do you think Socialist cheerleaders shouldn't bear some responsibility for allowing that? That stinking albatross should obviously be hung around the neck of every advocate of socialism. BS > Of course, if Greegor did choose to endorse me, I'd be seriously worried BS > - if a feral animal does start acting friendly, it's almost always BS > because it wants to get close enough to steal something. G > Before even remotely considering a hint that G > your opponent is a thief, without basis, you G > would do well to review the definition of G > thievery in light of the modus operandi of socialism. BS > Weird thinking. G > Do you have Aspergers? I'm "neurotypical". BS > No. I'm not particularly outgoing, but I certainly don't BS > lack non-verbal communications skills, and I'm not too BS > physically clumsy to play field hockey (which I did for BS > over fifty years). Either you're not diagnosed or you're just telling lies. Sports as a litmus test? LOL Nice try! BS > You are presumably happy to pay taxes BS > for universal education, defence, BS > law enforcement and the road network, BS > but if the concept is extended to BS > paying welfare to make the work force BS > healthier and more productive - as it BS > is in Scandinavia and Germany - the BS > extra tax extracted to pay for this BS > investment is "stolen" money. G > There is a big difference between the minimal G > government you cited and the ever-expanding G > government that attempts to PARENT every citizen, G > intrude into the very American individuality G > and individual rights. Our system has gotten G > away from it's responsibility to safeguard G > individual rights and become the single biggest G > threat to individual rights.
BS > Rubbish. Adequate welfare payments don't "parent" BS > anybody, and there's nothing "ever-expanding" BS > about collecting enough taxes to pay for a welfare BS > system that is sufficiently well-funded to deliver BS > a healthy and well-educated work force. Arise arise oh oppress-sed workers! ROFL! or a more literal translation from the French: Stand up, damned of the Earth Stand up, prisoners of starvation Reason thunders in its volcano This is the eruption of the end. Of the past let us make a clean slate Enslaved masses, stand up, stand up. The world is about to change its foundation We are nothing, let us be all... You're such a putz, such an idealogue.. BS > The US government isn't "minimal", and the only BS > individual rights it cares about are those of the BS > top 1% of the income distribution, to continue to BS > collect the lions share of any growth in the US BS > economy. At present the US spends a ridiculously BS > large amount of money on what is loosely called BS > "defence" but in practice is largely "corporate BS > welfare" paying for weapons systems developments BS > that aren't needed and rarely get completed. You spout good virulent rhetoric. Sing the Internationale again, Slowman! G > All you see is your beloved gradual socialism. G > I see the jackboot of STATE authority over the individual. BS > It's not exactly obvious in Scandinavia and BS > Germany. The Germans - in particular - have unhappy BS > memories of the time their country was run by people BS > who wore jackboots and get very shirty about civil BS > servants who try to assert too much authority. G > In the USA, every citizen is a sovereign KING. BS > If they are members of the top 1% of the income BS > distribution. The rest are economic serfs, BS > struggling along with essentially the same BS > inflation adjusted income they had back in BS > 1980, while education and health care get BS > progressively more expensive. G > I don't expect you to fully understand that. BS > I fully understand that you are the kind of BS > deluded idiot who could believe such a BS > fatuous lie. Meanwhile, you should wonder BS > whether the police could get a warrant to BS > break down a king's front door. You are an idealogue promoting a form of government that has repeatedly been tried but has always evolved into something tragic which has killed MILLIONS of people. Yet you think *I* am naive'? The founders and cheerleaders actually don't care about the death and destruction. They were and are very much about how their intended ends justify ANY means, no matter how bloody. I like the tortoise mascot with the slogan about how when they hit they hit HARD. But the wolf in sheep's clothing logo says a lot about the inherent sociopathy of socialism itself. The US founder of social work actually wrote books where he expressed his distrust of family and parents. He actually promoted ideas that children belong to the STATE and the international collective more than to their parents, he believed whole heartedly in the STATE as parent of every child. Not only was that Sociopathic thinking, but his presentations reflect a complete lack of people skills. Hmm.... And our courts have found over and over again that the STATE is the WORST parent. Even before Chouchesku's experiment in such sickness fell apart in Romania.. The same guy who wrote up such crap in the
1920's also evolved from a socialist into an outright Communist. What's up with that? How does that Socialist to Communist "bait and switch" take place within an individual without being coerced? So is that "bait and switch" really such an "accidental perversion of socialism"? BS > Ideologically acceptable taxation is fine, BS > but taxing for stuff you don't like is theft. G > You love gradual socialism. I detest it. BS > You might detest it less if you had some idea BS > of the way it worked. You'd be hard pressed BS > to find the jackboot of state authority BS > in Germany or Scandinavia. I'm not IN either of those places. Stop pretending that their situations are the same and stop thinking that what works in one place will automatically work somewhere else. That's dishonest of you. Political and economic systems are not like a drop in replacement IC, Slowman. I know that Socialism crucially DEPENDS on that jack boot of STATEISM though. G > You cite other countries with partial G > socialism. But you also attempt to escape G > the other socialist experiments that G > went tragically wrong. BS > There are plenty of capitalist experiments BS > that have gone tragically wrong. The US BS > doesn't deliver great education or health BS > care to all of it's citizens - it does BS > nowhere near as well as other advanced BS > industrial countries. I've heard that rhetoric from the old USSR, Cuba and North Korea. Did you feel like you're in good company with such complaints? Did you HONESTLY think that finding fault would help you promote YOUR crappy agenda? G > In fact, relative to HEALTHCARE alone, G > you attempt to dance away from socialist G > experiments that just look idiotic, G > like Canada or the UK. [ Slowman lecture on health scores internationally ] The USA gets medical refugees from Canada, dipstick. Spare me the academic bullshit that ignores common sense. [ snippage restored at NO CHARGE ]
------------------------- I don't know if you actually have Aspergers or not, but consider their modality for a moment. An Aspie can be VERY good at academia, can seem VERY intelligent at some things, academia, book learning, peer reviewed research, people like Noam Chomsky, linguistics. But an Aspie is by definition a sociopath. They do not understand PEOPLE. Aspies promote impractical ideas because they lack common sense. Aspies are sometimes referred to as idiot/savants. I think you are what common people would call an educated asshole. It's like a guy who never ran any kind of business, never worked as a governor of a state, yet came along with BIG IDEAS that were horribly impractical about health care and insurance. And got elected.
----------------- G > Somebody with common sense would not think that G > they could force an insurance company to cover G > EVERYTHING for everybody with no limits, and G > regardless of any pre-existing condition and G > think that the insurance rate would go down. BS > Why not? that's exactly how the national BS > health insurance schemes work in the UK, BS > Germany, France and the Netherlands, and BS > the most expensive of them cost about two BS > thirds of what the US system costs, per head. That's illogical. If an insurance company has to take massively larger open ended risks, rates go up, period. G > That was idiotic. BS > Scarcely. Maybe Obama knew a bit more about BS > the rest of the world than you do Head in clouds about basic business math regarding risk? G > Promising a lower rate while specifying everything G > that makes insurance expensive was a lie.
BS > Have you ever thought about what makes US health BS > insurance so expensive? Some Canadian economists BS > did, and their answer was vastly inflated BS > administrative costs. There's a lot of at in your BS > system - as in pork barrels - and it's being bled BS > off to make the top 1% of your income BS > distribution even more well off. Blaming the greedy insurance companies? ROFL Increasing the risk increases the premiums. G > Promising that everybody could keep their old G > insurance if they like it, yet outlawing G > almost every old policy was a lie.
BS > Maybe he assumed that nobody would like a BS > policy that didn't cover pre-existing BS > conditions, or allowed to insurers to BS > dump customers when they got sick. Make lots of excuses for his failings. [ Assertions about banks as economic risk takers restored at NO CHARGE. ] I question why banks need to get 200% on top of a homes cash price, but I consider that if I were in their spot would I be happy with taking the risk for the money. I would think somebody would take the little risk for less than 200% gross profit on the sale. G > If YOU were the insurance company and G > somebody says we're going to require you G > to cover everything for everybody, with G > no limits, and without preventing people G > with pre-existing conditions, YOU would G > definitely have to charge more. BS > If I hadn't been being exceptionally greedy BS > before, and US health insurance is a lot BS > more expensive than it's French, German BS > and Dutch equivalents. You sure are obsessed with equivocations that do not work. Is that the big hole in your brain? G > The "progressives" and the socialists are G > like Aspies in that their idea of how to pay G > the bills is childlike. BS > You really don't know anything about Asperger's BS > Syndrome do you. It seems to be rare - at 26 BS > per 100,000, so you've almost certainly never BS > met anybody with the disease - I certainly haven't. In the last year I actually met one in person who admitted it. I noticed and asked politely. I also met several others years ago before at conventions for computer science students, before they or I had ever heard of the disorder. In hindsight several stand out as classical cases. One committed a grisly murder and so got diagnosed. Aspergers cases are highly concentrated on internet and especially on usenet. Anonymous remailer users population has even more. G > They scapegoated people with "Cadillac" health G > care plans, they frequently scapegoat anybody with money. BS > You don't know what "scapegoat" means either. Obsessing with a word rather than the message? [ veiled ad hom by Slowman snipped, context restored NO CHARGE ] G > It's like an adult version of "Lord Of The Flies". Or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. People with an "autistic" level of understanding attempting to "run the show". In the end, the new revelations show that the people in charge just plain LIED. G > But Karl Marx rationalized such deception didn't he? BS > Karl Marx did endorse "the leading role of the party". BS > His economic insights were ground-breaking, but BS > his political insights were less impressive. G > Please keep trying to impress people with your G > genius on this matter, Sloman. BS > I don't need genius to outshine you - mere BS > familiarity with the facts is enough to establish BS > intellectual superiority, though in this context BS > it's your intellectual inferiority - actually BS > inadequacy, but let's be kind - which is made obvious. BS > BS > The Aspergers Syndrome which you want to ascribe to me BS > is a rare condition. The stupidity and ignorance BS > which you are exhibiting is all too common - half BS > the population has below average intelligence. You have IQ on me, but not EQ, Slowman. That is exactly true to form for Aspergers. Either you are not diagnosed or you have but lie about it. Regardless, an academic "egg head" who lacks human empathy, human understanding and common sense, a sociopathic genius must be very frustrated that people don't worship their genius. You desperately express your genius about anything and everything but you're frustrated that so much of your genius is wasted by your lack of common sense and social skills. Try to be less pedantic, Slowman.
nd a scale of months. After that, they're uncorrelated.
- who resent the fact that they were - correctly - labelled as incompetent and shown the door.
ose "facts," and simply invent more when pressed.
Whereas you are free to invent tales told to you by your unidentified but c learly incompetent friends, and feel free to ignore the rather more plausib le testimony of entirely identifiable climate experts (including the member s of the IPCC board).
This is entirely characteristic of denialist propaganda.
formatting link
You probably aren't being paid to spread it - you merely share the intellec tual defects of the likes of Fred Seitz, Fred Singer and so forth, who tho ught that far-right political correctness trumped scientific rigor. Not tha t you have the wit to aspire to scientific rigor ...
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.