Some off-topic bickering split from the 'Peak Econobox' thread

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Just got my flu shot 2 days ago...

With wellness appointments to our doctors, my wife & I will get shots. Our excellent insurance covers our doctor appointments (no co-pays) & meds are $1, even for meds costing $200 or more. Gov't health insurance needs to be upgraded & available to all.

[redpoint5]

Single payor insurance might make sense, but everyone needs skin in the game. A $20 copay should exist, as well as $5 for prescriptions, with some cap on the max amount for those taking many.

Insurance is supposed to protect against unlikely and irrecoverable financial disaster due to health issues, not cover expected issues like the sniffles. There's nothing to be done about cold or flu anyhow, so there's no reason for people to visit for these reasons.

I have an HSA plus high deductible health insurance. Early this year I had an eye emergency caused by shingles, and paid about $1000 total. No problem, as the money I've saved far exceeds that expense.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by litesong

Excess Glacier melt isn't caused by the sun, since the sun's TSI hasn't risen enough to account for it AND TSI has been low for the last 13+ years. Possible cosmic ray increases can't account for the melt. Glacial melt isn't caused by solar cycles, since rising temperatures & the melt are way too quick to be accounted for by slowly shifting solar cycles. However, snappily rising man-made GHG, infra-red energy absorbing CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6 & other GHGs have been rapidly rising in the atmosphere, mathematically accounting for excess heat being delayed in Earth's lower biosphere. In addition to the GHGs are the positive feedback mechanisms, initiated by excess GHGs, all again, accounting for excess heat.

Of course, Hersbird knew this already, because the above has been told it before. It just repeats a question it has offered before, that it thinks is rhetorical, is easily asked & sometimes not answered. Such is a common strategy by AGW deniers.

That's one theory, but it then becomes a one in 10,000 occurrence as it has happened 10,000 times before without any input from man.

Here's what I have learned from the application of science. Oh I had the classroom theory, year, and years, and years at the highest levels possible at the finest institutions. Training with a failure rate higher than that experienced by Navy Seals, just all academic not physical. So I learned how things are supposed to be, then for 8 years I applied it. often 80+ hours a week, at least 48 weeks a year. Titrations, spectrophotometers, centrifuges, ph meters, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, etc. The joke I had heard became reality. When you as field chemist are asked what something is, the reply is, "What do you want it to be?" Keep in mind this is in the realm of hard science. We know exactly what is happening, nothing is speculation, nothing is unknown in a process, we aren't filling in any blanks. We can push those precise analysis to a huge range of results based on tiny accuracy of analysis errors at each step. Now if the outcome didn't have a bias then most would wash out and overall you would have a pretty honest result. But when you have done it a thousand times you soon find that those paying the checks actually are looking for specific results. So you give them what they expect.

Now I look at man's effect on the climate and the results both sides get, knowing what it is like in the real world. I also know from my almost 50 years of riding this planet how amazing it all seems to be. It's not some fragile piece of glass waiting to be shattered by a small input from man. Animals aren't fragile, people aren't fragile, plants aren't fragile, the rocks, the core, the atmosphere, none of it, is weak.

one place where I see the bias pushing results, is in the burying of solutions that could help remove C02, if it does need removed, if those solutions don't also involve a political push that the convenient truth of favors one political religion. So say large CO2 scrubbers. I have read detailed reports that show how that could be done on a large scale at under $100 per ton. Worst case $1000 per ton with current technology. I always hear how batteries will get better and less expensive with time an application, so wouldn't that be true here as well? Maybe $50/ton is possible one day. But even at $1000/ton it still would be less expensive that the Green New Deal. What it doesn't do is control people, scare them into voting a certain way, live a way good for the state, and all the other things where the solution seems to be the same solution communism was supposed to fix.

This doesn't even touch on all the unknowns, that you have to plug into models. Again pushing the results where you want the outcome to fall. What do clouds do? We don't know, so we guess. Imagine what the guess is from those that want this to be a huge problem? That's right more clouds, and clouds don't cool they heat even more. We don't know that there will be more clouds, or that clouds will heat even more, but we will take that error of analysis and carry it forward to the next guess we make. This time about say the ocean's carbon sink, and on and on. To get the small warming that will somehow make part of the Earth uninhabitable, you have to keep multiplying those guesses by themselves because if you took an more average approach we would end up with results that we have actually experienced the last 20 years, rather than the results that scare people into submitting to their religion.

There now go ahead and delete these posts to further scrub the internet of opposing thoughts.

[freebeard]

There now go ahead and delete these posts to further scrub the internet of opposing thoughts.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to encourage (in jest, I know) it/them to try something they can't do.

I like the description of chaining pre-suppositions. The ultimate probably is the Drake
Equation.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Single payor insurance might make sense, but everyone needs skin in the game. A $20 copay should exist, as well as $5 for prescriptions, with some cap on the max amount for those taking many.

redpoint5 babbles the CEO, business-boosting, republican line to enrich employers at every corner, at the expense of workers. Workers already have skin in the game, as employers make employees perform injurious & death-dealing operations. Because employers didn't care about employees, employers need to get hung with their employers medical bills. Screw employers who work at every page-turning of the medical forms to reduce their moral responsibility to their workers. Employers pay lawyers big bucks, so employees do NOT get their just medical rewards.

[redpoint5]

None of that is accurate; not even close.

Survival of the fittest applies to ideas too, so there's a Darwinian mechanism at play with nearly everything, including organization of labor. We see the intellectually less-fit ideas such as communism get defeated by intellectually superior ideas such as private ownership and liberty.

It must be frustrating being so far from your ideal considering we've got much more liberty than you suggest we should.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

None of that is accurate; not even close. Survival of the fittest.......

redpoint5 champions those that have the biggest clubs & most bullets to feed guns. It can NOT be physical or paperwork violence that keeps the new earned money all in the hands of the rich, as has occurred over the last 11 years. It is easily seen that wealth is NOT wealth, when individuals & families die from lack. It must be love that determines that each worker is worth her/his family's well being.
Yes, the fittest of survivors was Jesus. How we treat the poor, is how Jesus is treated. redpoint5 is pumping employer & CEO suppression of the poor. Such be NOT the way of Heaven, & such can NOT be the way of countries deep in wealth, when wealth's benefits are withheld from the poor.

[litesong]

redpoint5 babbles .... so employees do NOT get their just medical rewards.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Wut?

Not hard to understand at all......'cept fer employers, the rich & suppressionists.

[freebeard]

It can NOT be physical or paperwork violence that keeps the new earned money all in the hands of the rich, as has occurred over the last 11 years.

That's only 2008. How about 23 Dec, 1913? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act After the Titanic took all those congressmen down?

I mean, after all; the Babylon those Rastafarians talk about goes back 6000 years.

You know what central banks offering negative rates means?

[litesong]

Originally Posted by litesong

.....employer & CEO suppression of the poor. Such be NOT the way of Heaven, & such can NOT be the way of countries deep in wealth, when wealth's benefits are withheld from the poor.

Article on wealth concentration AND suppression of the poor:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../zucm-f15.html
Excerpts from the article:
.... the top 1 percent in the US now owns about 40 percent of total household wealth, increasing its share by at least 10 percentage points since 1989. Over the same period “the share of wealth owned by the bottom 90 percent has collapsed in similar proportions.”

The acceleration is even more marked in the highest income levels. The share of wealth owned by the top 0.00025 percent (roughly the 400 richest Americans, according to Forbes Magazine data), rose from 1 percent in the early 1980s to over 3 percent in recent years. A similar tripling of wealth is seen in the top 0.01 percent.
//////
More data in the article......