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

I just pointed out his error. Didn't try to correct it. Didn't care to correct it.

Remember one AGW denier, who couldn't spell & her diction often went astray. Three or four times, she would have eight or so errors in short posts. I just pointed out her errors. Didn't try to correct her errors. Didn't care to correct her errors. As time past, she became incomprehensible. I just pointed out her errors. Didn't try to correct her errors. Didn't care to correct her errors.

I'm happiest when AGW deniers don't learn. I am happy to report that AGW deniers are less scientific than 15 years ago, becoming very "don'T rump"-like. I am very happy on this website. I am litesong.

I would argue they are not necessarily errors. The point of writing is to convey a thought. If you knew what the thought was, hence had the ability to "correct" it, then the writing was successful. I can't believe how much school time is wasted on such pursuits. Now that we have a dyslexic daughter I'm more than just annoyed at the wasted time, but downright angry at the shaming that goes along with "just pointing out errors". Do you go into the back community and point out the errors of their dialect? The only purpose of doing it on a forum like this is in an attempt to belittle the other person or make yourself feel better about your own failures and struggles.

Ah, you assume the AGW denier woman I was talking about, was dyslexic & she gained your sympathy. Do you have more sympathy for dyslexic people or non-scientific AGW denier people? I see that you attribute similar handi-capable characteristics to both groups. I wouldn't say dyslexic people are all non-scientific AGW deniers.

I didn't assume anything, it doesn't matter why people don't live up to your personal grammar standards, just giving my personal revelation on why it doesn't matter. Your politics have nothing to do with anything in my book, except I have a feeling it has everything to do with everything you do.

Good, because that would be conflation.

The scientific so-called 'AGWD' are waiting for you to catch up on the science.

Pot, kettle, something, something.

As a fellow antivaxxer, I'm genuinely curious what you mean here?

Anti-science (sigh-ants) AGW deniers circle the republican party wagon train. (sigh-ants) AGW deniers are most comfortable with "don'T rump", often using his tactics & elevating themselves to re-pubic-lick-uns. Now that "don'T rump" enters the realm of impeachment, (sigh-ants) AGW deniers want to be in bed with the sexist, racist, xenophobic, putin & KKK-led authoritarian wannabe, BEFORE "don'T rump" can lose his orange glow from the KKK bonfires.
But, I knew the handles of anti-science AGW deniers way before "don"T rump" slithered toward the White House.

What an enormous ball of ad hominems, holy cow. Literally none of that is remotely true.

Aha! They're in it together. :)

Signed...... a "donT rump" voter AND "sigh-ants" AGW denier.
//////
I'm happy tho, that you know & did not object to the term, "re-pubic-lick-un".

Shaneajanderson— Starting to think someone is going on and off their meds.

I just now noticed the '...pubic-lick...'.

I am neither a Trump supporter, nor a republican, but global warming is the hoax of the century.

Edited for grammar

That was a joke (not that there is even a vaccine for leprosy), but I'll stand with your choice either way. Personally I am fine with a few basic vaccines but would never just blindly do all 26 shots the CDC pushes by age 2. I'm long past that myself now but can't imagine a day I will ever even get a flu shot now. Just the fact a google search only reveals page after page of one side of the argument is a HUGE red flag to me. If it really was all roses and rainbows it could stand on it's own honesty and wouldn't need such a campaign.

Which is it?

Hi mods! Can we split... whatever this is... into its own thread... and then delete it? :)

Just got my flu shot 2 days ago; job requirement. My wife says it's something like 50% effective, and then drops something like 10% every month after that. Some studies have found them to be cost effective in the elderly and children, but not cost effective for adults up to 50 years old.

I think that when you see glaciers melting, the people telling you that it is not any warmer are the hoaxers. I have only seen one, but the news is the same all over, and things like old postcards from Glacier National Park make in obvious.

I corrected the "or" to "of". I typed that from my phone and the stupid Android auto correct regularly changes logical wordings to nonsense.

Pursuing impeachment is excellent, as that means nobody is doing anything, which is a platform I'd vote for. If someone said they would do nothing but golf and leave us alone and stop writing ever expanding, cumbersome, contradictory, burdensome, expensive, liberty killing laws; that would have my vote. Hope this impeachment charade makes the Federal government impotent for a long time.

We used to be under a glacier, then under a lake formed as they melted, now a valley, then back uner the glacier as they reformed, then a lake, repeat. If the earth is 5 billion years old we would have had tens of thousands of glacial- interglacial cycles. So glaciers melting is the observation, now why?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

redpoint5 babbles .... so employees do NOT get their just medical rewards.Not hard to understand at all......'cept fer employers, the rich & suppressionists.

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?

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......

I'm appalled at the thought of having my health insurance dependent on continued employment. That's just another tentacle of enslavement, along with debt. It isn't even conducive to mental health.

Yep, that's something we're in agreement on. Health insurance has no natural association with employment except perhaps very indirectly that a business is served better by healthy employees.

Insurance covers individuals, yet the policies are written for a group. That doesn't make sense. Someone financially responsible might choose a high deductible plan and pay for the usual and expected checkups and trivial health issues out of pocket, while someone less financially responsible might pick a higher cost plan with a lower deductible/copay. Most employers have a few options to pick from, but that's unnecessary if insurance covers individuals instead of groups. It should be more like auto insurance; you pick the coverage you're comfortable with and pay the associated premium.

We're probably headed toward single payor universal health, and I'm not necessarily opposed to it. It still leaves room in the market to purchase more/different/better care. The downside of universal health is the abandonment of personal responsibility, and liberty. If the taxpayors are footing the bill, then they have a say in your lifestyle choices, and they certainly have a say in how much to spend on everything, including end of life decisions.

I can imagine it being illegal to smoke, be overweight, or refuse vaccination. It's like living in someone else's house, you have to live by their rules.

Naming & summarizing important topics of health & environment topics as "off-topic bickering", shows this website's leadership is filled with blatant bias, showing its obvious suppression of the environment & social suppressions of the poor. Of course, the same is pouring through authoritarian slanted gov'ts, governmental parties, & other WEBSITES, even those, which name themselves as "enlightened".

I suggest you re-read the (your) post where the split occurred, and then point out to us where the important topics of health and environment were furthered by that post. You even said you're happiest when people don't learn, which suggests the post wasn't intended to serve any purpose other than to rant and generally be disagreeable.

This suggests that maybe Ecomodder is not the right forum for you?

I'm a poor environmentalist and Ecomodder does not 'suppress' me.

Broadly painting anyone who disagrees with you as a republican or trump supporter (with your various odd ways of stating such) shows your blatant bias and desire to suppress free thought and individuality.

See what I did there?

Let me be the first to say "that's racist!"...

...now please excuse me while I cash in all my virtue credits.

Maybe we scared him off now? I didn't even have to mention chopper rides.

Are they free? :)

Don't be premature:
Two paragraphs of anecdote and then a call for harm to others.

I didn't see any call for harm to other, just a claim that they would be harmed by global warming, apparently.