|
|
It is, however, a good paraphrase of how he characterized climate scientists, and specifically Hansen, in the past. A bit of hyperbole, sure, but close enough.
Glad to see I'm remembered, but I don't recall saying anything close to that about James Hansen, ever, in any post. I believe the worst thing I've ever said about him or any climate scientist is that exaggerate the dangers of AGW to receive more funding. Hansen, working for NASA is simply trying to ensure more funding for NASA. I support him on that, even though I don't agree with him making grand claims about AGW, even though he prefaces them, with, "OK, I know I was wrong last time, but this time, I'm right. Trust me." (Of course, I am paraphrasing)
And of course, we all know that no credible scientists disagrees with global warming. If a scientist disagrees with the dangers posed by AGW, he obviously loses all credibility.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Since your Gestapo mod buddies modded my comment down because it proved that you were full of shit, I'll make my point again...
How can you call it a logical fallacy when this very article is about a city government banning something because it is deemed unhealthy? Sounds to me like it's more FACT than FALLACY! Your decade of data didn't take into account the incompetence of the American public.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
What asshole modded this "OffTopic"? I was responding to a post that said governments don't limit freedom based on unhealthy behaviors. Bullshit! This very article is about governments limiting freedom of choice because that choice might be deemed unhealthy.
I even provided a fucking link to this very article. How can I be off topic when I'm talking about the very topic TFA is about?
If you disagree with my post, take it up with the submitter.
I've been a fan of Red Hat/Fedora since... well, just after they started providing a distro on the Intel platform (some of us remember when Red Hat was only available for the DEC Alpha)...
I think it's time to consider a new distro, if this is how they want to work. I've been putting off looking at Mint, but I guess that will change soon.
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
The law doesn't prevent looking forward. The law prevents the prohibition of building in areas that may be in danger based on the wildest of predictions that may have been exagerated or simply wrong.
Believe it or not, sometimes, the models are wrong. You will notice, however, that the scientists always say, "we were wrong in our last model, but this time, we are correct!" For example:
We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 ± 0.3 W m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade..
-- J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann
In other words, we can't accurately predict heat distribution because we don't understand the effect aerosols have on the climate, but we still predict an acceleration of sea level rise.
> it makes the implication that the mother should have a choice and anyone else (government, priests, etc) can go bugger off.
Which means you accept the exact premise I mentioned as inherent in the phrase, that it isn't an important choice. I.e. that it is 'living' but isn't 'life'. You are willing to be just tolerant enough to allow some poor deluded Christer to imagine it is a baby and not kill it if that is their choice but you know better. You wouldn't be arguing for the mother's right to off the lil crotch fruit the day after birth, right? That would be MURDER, where the day before it is just a PROCEDURE.
But as for me, I'm more of the opinion that on one side you have people who hear Monty Python's _Every Sperm Is Sacred_ and fail to realize it is a joke at their expense while the other side, pushing for abortion right up to the instant of natural delivery is across the line to infanticide. So stupid or evil, are those my only choices? Seriously, it is a question that logic and reason can't decide in the limited knowledge and philosophy available to us so lets just pick something reasonable in the middle, call it "The Line; For now" and move on. No more killing things that could just about as easily be delivered alive and no more of this life begins at conception either. Admit we can't decide for now and agree to revisit it when science advances.
I'm pretty sure most of my post wasn't passive aggressive, but hey. I assume you didn't read the my tagline either.
Sending an anonymous email is real easy. I forget sometimes that there are people who read and write on here that actually don't know how to do simple IT things.
Lets completely ignore how that isn't true in any country that has single payer health care.
There is decades of data around single payer government systems, but lets keep ignoring it and make decision based on logical fallacies shoved down your throat by the republican party.
Really? I ask because I just read a story about how NY is trying to ban sugary drinks because of health care costs. HERE is a link.
It rarely merits a thought. In the US as I understand it, lack of health cover is a real impediment to starting your own business or changing a job. Particularly if you have an existing chronic condition.
Employer provided health insurance policies may not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
I'm not saying you don't have a point about who makes the rules, but ultimatley the rules in the UK are made by a government that has to be re-elected, how much say do you have over your rules?
It has already been suggested here in the US that smokers should be denied health care funding for smoking related conditions. It hasn't happened, but wait until Nightline or 60-minutes runs a special about how much it costs the taxpayer to provide health insurance for people that do unhealthy activity X. A prime example would NY banning sugary beverages.
Never raise your hand to your children -- it leaves your midsection unprotected. -- Robert Orben