Archimedes showed 2000 years ago that sea ice doesn't affect sea levels. No other effect from melting sea ice is proven. Plankton, seals, polar bears have been expanding in population. This hysteria over sea ice is evidence how dumb liberals are. It makes no difference if all the sea ice melted tomorrow. Nothing would happen. They say they think some things will happen but they are always wrong. Every single thing they ever said is wrong and has been wrong. If you think they've been right let me know because they were wrong. There has never been a worse "science..". Literally everything they ever predicted was wrong. If you believe a word you are in a filter bubble.

Hillary and Obama policies have created 65 million refugees the largest in history. Now climate change liberals want to tell us climate change will create refugees. How ironic. The refugee lovers complaining about refugees. You made 65 million of them. What do you care about refugees anyway? What a load. Load upon load of lies and crap. Cagw doesn't exist. All the consequences ever predicted never happen. There is no sea level rise. 30,000 km more coastlines In the last 30 years than before. Less extreme storms than ever. Nothing cagw people say has ever happened. The last year heat wave was El Niño. We have gotten them before and will get them again just as we're getting a monster La Niña now. The fastest decline in temperatures ever recorded. Did they say that? Did they predict that? I did. Totally crap climate science is drivel but we are expected to beleive nonexistent coastline decline is supposed to cause things when nothing they've ever predicted before has come true. Nothing. No ice free Arctic by 2000. No polar bears extinction. No extreme hurricanes. No extreme anything. It's crap science for morons.

In order to change the constitution would require a minimum of 2/3 of the states to pass a law like this. It may not be apparent to the liberals on here who live in NYC or california but if we went to a popular vote system the smaller states would never have any say in the president. The chances that Vermont, New Hampshire and other states would go for this is zilch. Try it. You won't get 10 states to pass this idea. The founders did this for precisely the reason we see the EU breaking up. The individual EU stares feel dominated by Germany and France. As a result they are thinking of leaving. They don't want to be run by other states. Do you think Oregon wants to be run by NYC ? I am shocked so few people understand this basic reason why the founders were able to put this country together. Nobody would have agreed to join the union if they thought the bigger populous states would decide everything. Having local control is good. The system we have is actually very close to optimal. The proof is 250 years of sustained democracy. The biggest challenge was when the north imposed a law on the south it didn't like. People don't like being told how to run their lives. That's why we have it the way we do. If you want to change it which would be nigh impossible given this. It wouldn't make it any better for democrats in the long run. Republicans would simply target california and New York more.

It is obvious falsity. Productivity measures the "output" of all goods and services / the labor hours. The output is related to how much we spend on stuff. The fact is most things related to the Internet don't cost a lot. In fact if improvements are made in the but the total spent on tvs doesn't change then productivity shows no increase. We could be watching 100" 4K tvs compacted to black and white 15" tvs and from the point of productivity if we aren't spending more on tvs there has been no productivity increase. Productivity doesn't count these incremental improvements in quality of life including things such as better medicines for reducing pain / side effects or even extending life. I don't know what the productivity measure measures but it is not worth discussing it at least unless you are proposing something better to replace it.

This bar is incredibly low. There is very low probability that there isn't some warming. What would be more interesting question: A) what is the probability that the warming we've seen isn't caused entirely by humans. I predict that the at least 90 % of climate scientists would agree with this statement. B) What is the probability that none of the warming is due to man? This probability could be as high as 50%. C) what is the probability the less than 50% of the warming we've seen is being caused by man? I believe climate scientists would agree at this point that it could be 70%. D) what is the probability that temperatures rise 1c between now and 2100. I believe climate scientists would have to agree less than 20%. E) what is the probability that sea level will rise less than 6" more by 2100. Climate scientists would have to agree more than 50% possibly as high as 80%. F) will the temperature change caused by human reduction of co2 output that will occur by 2100 be greater than 0.01C. Climate scientists would have to agree 50% or more that all the effort and money we spend on this stupid problem will result in less than 0.01c change in the ultimate yenperature in 2100. This puts the context of 97% agree man caused some warming somewhere along the line from 1945 to 2016.

Okay. I'll grant this comment has the sense of authentic and interesting points. We still need to address the fact that costs of all tests and drugs have soared 10 to 20 times in the last 10 years without any real increases in underlying costs in many cases. The way medical care is allocated costwise is not transparent.

I certainly understand the tests have to be accurate. I'm just saying the vitriol is kind of over the top like some people are being paid to attack Theranos or find it in their interest.

Why would the medical industry want to attack Theranos? 1) the standard array of blood tests I get 2 times every year for the last 20 years (quantified geek) have gone from 200$ to $3000 over that time. That's right. With technology improvements basic tests have climbed 15 times in cost. Why? I think it is how hospitals and clinics recover money they lose on other services like the famous $1000 toilet seat they just allocate essentially an arbitrary cost it has nothing to do with actual cost. Whatever. I don't really know. All I know is you can get this same set of tests from Theranos for 200 dollars or less and even in other countries for 1/10th cost. So this reflects the same problem we see everywhere in healthcare. Unbelievable costs that are literally a persons lifetime earnings for a disease. My company pays $3500 / month for healthcare for a family of four which is 4 times what it was just 10 years ago. In one year rates went up nearly 50%. Other years 20-25%. I thought obamacare was going to have MORE people buying insurance which would reduce the subsidy burden of everyone else. Instead prices have soared unbelievably. I don't understand. I think Theranos trying to enable a cheaper testing system is something to be highly supported. Why are people defending labs which charge $500 for a test they did for $20 10 years ago ? Maybe you think I get too many tests but bigdata is the answer to reducing the costs of medicine. Understanding what helps who under what conditions and genetic factors or unknown variables today is a holy grail to Improving results and cost effectiveness as well as prevention. We need cheaper tests. Thank you Theranos.