tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post5196951967805653189..comments2024-03-28T08:34:43.846-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Navy, Russians, Shipping & Insurance Companies...and Climate ChangeDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91038988442956725642012-04-09T20:49:19.578-07:002012-04-09T20:49:19.578-07:00The hate and anger and easily swayed by charismati...The hate and anger and easily swayed by charismatic personalities comes from the collapse thats been going on since the dismantling of American industry and shift of the tax structure<br />People left struggling and destitute, having always been told they were the good and right people, and with no answers or explanationLamont Cranstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15704275663099200355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46397190684967739522012-04-03T16:02:58.264-07:002012-04-03T16:02:58.264-07:00Lets try this cartoon link again (citokate for ame...Lets try this cartoon link again (citokate for american journalism)<br /><br /><a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/532800_3587853025310_1542848808_33096151_1976735317_n.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/532800_3587853025310_1542848808_33096151_1976735317_n.jpg</a>sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26124979543246826802012-04-03T15:59:08.216-07:002012-04-03T15:59:08.216-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54996501809697864412012-04-02T12:47:26.472-07:002012-04-02T12:47:26.472-07:00Heh. I used 1789 for two different historical ref...Heh. I used 1789 for two different historical references. That was undoubtably confusing.<br /><br />The reference to the virgin continent available in 1789 was meant to refer to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.<br /><br />The reference to the oligarchs pushing us toward 1789 meant the French Revolution.<br /><br />That must have been an interesting year.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45079816124156386862012-04-02T12:45:24.275-07:002012-04-02T12:45:24.275-07:00Robert:
I look at this... and then listen to clai...Robert:<br /><i><br />I look at this... and then listen to claims that we can be anything we want if we work hard enough... and realize it's a lie. Hard work doesn't do a thing if you don't have the connections... and sometimes a dose of luck.<br /></i><br /><br />The notion that you can be anything you're willing to work for presumes that there is a vast virgin continent at hand full of all the resources one requires for survival and for comfort and for one's means of production. It might have been plausible in 1789. It isn't now.<br /><br />Once everything worth owning is already owned, then the aphorism becomes a cruel joke. How can you work to get ahead if the stuff you require to do so is already someone eles's private property, and they're not selling?<br /><br />Unless "willing to work" is taken to mean "willing to kiss the asses of the lawful owners," making them like you enough to trickle some of their wealth down onto you.<br /><br />Dr Brin is correct that we are heading for either a new 1776 or a new 1789. And the oligarchs seem bound and determined to foreclose the former option and therefore insure the latter.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30628425586212471912012-04-02T11:14:56.280-07:002012-04-02T11:14:56.280-07:00Robert:
you might want to poitn your friend towar...Robert:<br /><br />you might want to poitn your friend towars this web address as a starting poitn for research to help him out.<br />http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/ma.htmlbobsandiegohttp://www.robertmicthellevans.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68474844185002987032012-04-02T10:39:29.388-07:002012-04-02T10:39:29.388-07:00He's a wage slave, working constant overtime t...He's a wage slave, working constant overtime to try and make ends meet. He also doesn't have a college degree, meaning that he's not going to find a decent job with the benefits he'd need, especially in this job market. (He also is an ostrich Republican and refuses to listen to me about things political, though he has become cynical enough that he now admits the Republicans are corrupt. He just can't accept that Democrats aren't as bad, especially seeing he also lives in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.)<br /><br />So Cobra's out of reach. Getting a college education is probably out of reach (though both his fiancee and myself urge him to take Saturday courses or online courses). His one hope is that his job ends up laying him off so he can collect unemployment while taking college courses and working toward an actual usable degree. I look at this... and then listen to claims that we can be anything we want if we work hard enough... and realize it's a lie. Hard work doesn't do a thing if you don't have the connections... and sometimes a dose of luck.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26799057017133105412012-04-02T10:21:25.737-07:002012-04-02T10:21:25.737-07:00Robert: concerning your example;
Under current law...Robert: concerning your example;<br />Under current law, there would be no pre-existing issue. Once the perosn lost his employer supplied policy he woudl have the optiont to continue coverage under COBRA. The effect is he gets to pay for the policy at the same rate and premiums as the employers paid, for up to 18 months. (If you are a professional with good savings tis is greatif you were a wage slave living paycheck to paycheck COBRA is out fo your reach and you become unemployed.) Pre-ACA if you didn;t get the COBRA then you were liekly screwed as far as healthcare was concerned and would start turing to Patient Assistance Program for your medication needs, if you and your doctor knew about them.bobsandiegohttp://www.robertmitchellevans.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43461813930505322432012-04-02T10:02:47.230-07:002012-04-02T10:02:47.230-07:00Another angle to help folks ignore long-term probl...Another angle to help folks ignore long-term problems like climate change, make their lives so difficult, there's no time to think about the day after tomorrow, for example:<br />http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor<br />I'll likely be accused (Again!) of "compassion-trolling" for posting the link, but the swamp ain't gonna' be drained if folks are up to their backsides in alligators.Tim H.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3786159650941265432012-04-02T09:12:51.704-07:002012-04-02T09:12:51.704-07:00Let's put it this way. My friend is currently ...Let's put it this way. My friend is currently trapped in his job, which has an over three hours round-trip commute, because he has severe asthma and high blood pressure, and his son has severe asthma. Even if he could get onto a new health insurance with his medical issues, the 90 day period before getting insurance would be too long for his children (and his ex would probably sue him and force him to purchase insurance out-of-pocket to support them, along with child support, despite his being unable to support both in that period of time).<br /><br />Meanwhile, the company he works for has declared bankruptcy and is doing everything in its power to weasel out of its responsibilities concerning the pension. This after it previously went into bankruptcy and weaseled out of previous labor union contracts and reduced what it had to shill out for health insurance and reduce its pension responsibilities. <br /><br />And yet this is a good thing. The business is doing the proper thing by ensuring the stakeholders get a maximum benefit at the expense of its employees. Republicans would applaud its efforts and say that the union is responsible for the woes of the company (despite having agreed to a freeze in pay raises for several years - the company now wants to slash salaries).<br /><br />There is a certain irony that the company that produces Twinkies is behaving like a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinking" rel="nofollow">Twink</a> (to use a gamer term).Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59049401652664115282012-04-02T08:32:53.109-07:002012-04-02T08:32:53.109-07:00What the "creditable coverage" letter do...What the "creditable coverage" letter does is waive all the waiting periods after the policy was issued. <br /><br />I would have to look at the details of all my old policies to see whether pre-existing conditions ever had an outright denial, as compared to a waiting period for coverage. But health care policies are so tedious and self-referential that I'm not going to do that.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07541997928359883625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6332781841507043652012-04-02T06:54:26.710-07:002012-04-02T06:54:26.710-07:00bobsandiego:
Before ACA, If you were covered by a...bobsandiego:<br /><i><br />Before ACA, If you were covered by a policy and developed an issue, when you lost that policy, for whatever reason, the former policy would issue to you a letter of 'Credible Coverage", and if you went in a fairly shorty period of time and applied for a new policy (I don;t remember the exact period but it was like 60-90 days) then the new policy could not consider any condition covered by the previous policy as 'preexisting.' <br /></i><br /><br />Hmmmm, I knew about the "credible coverage" thing, but I thought that just testified to the fact that you were insured at all. Did not realize it affected pre-existing conditions that had come to light during that previous coverage.<br /><br /><i><br />Now with the provisions of the ACA in place, a payer (insurance company) cannot exclude you for a preexisting condition. I hope that helps.<br /></i><br /><br />It helps as long as the ACA (also known as ObamaCare) isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or by the next congress. Which is one reason my answer to TwinBeam was that I'm not willing to see Democratic losses in 2012 even if it makes them stronger in 2016 and beyond.<br /><br />But thanks for the info. Maybe it is better than I had thought.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48999934787496941452012-04-02T03:38:30.032-07:002012-04-02T03:38:30.032-07:00Sigh. (i.e., standard production of CaO to immedia...Sigh. (i.e., standard production of CaO to immediately put in the ocean would be CO2 neutral; CaO production at present for cement is indeed a net CO2 producer.)Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33082467209528965502012-04-02T03:33:17.412-07:002012-04-02T03:33:17.412-07:00I may have been too brief: I wanted to mention tha...I may have been too brief: I wanted to mention that the statement about gene mod being a lefty bugbear only may not be true; food crops depending on wild pollinators (and crops formerly depending on domesticated honeybees may need wild alternates) are suffering in yields due to (in part) BT corn, as well as "regular" pesticide use. Humans are affected. As an aside I should note I think there are no problems EATING GM food, that may indeed be a "left" or moonbat myth..<br /><br />Different topic noted elsewhere: Climate engineering proposals to fix even more carbon into ocean calcium carbonates are now going to need to raise the pH in order to make that happen. Iron additions, also proposed, (but not here) would also lower pH. I don't know if any calcium deposits are available on earth that are not already saturated with carbonate, else ocean additions of calcium might be just such engineering which would fix carbon. As we all know usable calcium for cement etc. is produced by driving off CO2 from it with heat prior to further use. So standard production would be CO2 neutral, unfortunately.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40016836824099179122012-04-01T20:16:35.685-07:002012-04-01T20:16:35.685-07:00LarryHart said "But the way the system works ...LarryHart said <i>"But the way the system works now, "pre-existing condidtion" does not refer to a condition not previously insured, but a condition not previously insured under a particular policy. So once someone has a long-term condition (such as diabetes), they are locked into the policy they currently have, unable to purchase a new policy. If they become ineligible for their current employer-based policy, they are completely screwed."</i><br />This is not quite correct. Before ACA, If you were covered by a policy and developed an issue, when you lost that policy, for whatever reason, the former policy would issue to you a letter of 'Credible Coverage", and if you went in a fairly shorty period of time and applied for a new policy (I don;t remember the exact period but it was like 60-90 days) then the new policy could not consider any condition covered by the previous policy as 'preexisting.' However, if you went beyond that window and then applied, they could consider any existing condition as preexisting. If you were low income and lost your insurance you generally could not afford an individual policy and often these people would end up uninsurable except for high risk pools that existed in *some* states. Now with the provisions of the ACA in place, a payer (insurance company) cannot exclude you for a preexisting condition. I hope that helps.bobsandiegohttp://www.robertmitchellevans.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66545771141587787192012-04-01T20:05:33.985-07:002012-04-01T20:05:33.985-07:00Dr Bring: Oh I agree that the scale is vastly diff...Dr Bring: Oh I agree that the scale is vastly different; The Conservatives are achieving a homogenous party much faster than the liberals. I don;t see that as a value statement much an observation. And I agree that once the republican's started this purification process the Democrats had to follow suit. To do anything else would be to surrender the field and always lose. So this traps us in a vicious cycle leading to rigid parties unbending to each other in a system that expect compromise. It is madness. I wish I knew how to break the cycle. I can be reasonable and I can try to promote reasonable leaders, but until we have greater numbers, the system will become more locked. the worst element is the stupid cycles of culture wars, that depresses me so much.bobsandiegohttp://www.robertmitchellevans.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80256757211781984382012-04-01T19:48:13.752-07:002012-04-01T19:48:13.752-07:00... bottom line, we have what looks like a substan...... bottom line, we have what looks like a substantial threat to civilisation and, possibly, our very existence in the next century or two. As that is the period my immediate offspring will be inhabiting, I think I know where I'll be concentrating my prescience.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35412620917200239072012-04-01T19:32:14.714-07:002012-04-01T19:32:14.714-07:00Increasing ocean acidification indicates that more...Increasing ocean acidification indicates that more CO2 will not increase any biofixing of carbonates; the energy barrier to do so steepens.<br /><br />BT genes in corn are decimating pollinators and threatening many species.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60754632692947752302012-04-01T19:12:45.540-07:002012-04-01T19:12:45.540-07:00Looking ahead: As an issue, I'd say AGW has a ...Looking ahead: As an issue, I'd say AGW has a horizon of a few hundred years. Things will have stabilised after time, one way or another:<br /><br />A. we'll have got out shit together, eliminated emissions, be patching up the environmental damage, and be a generally sadder but wiser society.<br /><br />B. we'll have tossed those damn watermelon greenies aside, got on with business as usual, and fallen flat on our faces. Emissions will collapse along with us. Welcome to Earrth.<br /><br />(David, you keep mentioning the Goldilocks zone. As a rough guide, how much closer to the sun is the inner limit? Are there any studies indicated what level of CO2 etc. would lead to a Venusian Earth?)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44758300237415944152012-04-01T19:04:03.397-07:002012-04-01T19:04:03.397-07:00Using economics to tackle issues of climate change...Using economics to tackle issues of climate change, while not unwelcome, is a bit lame to me.<br /><br />The problem with economics is that it's traditionally assumed to exist in isolation to the ecology. A simple anecdote shows how embedded this idea is. A paper was being drafted for the IMF which included a simple diagram describing economic theory. The reviewer suggested putting a box around the model marked 'Environment'. This, he thought, would succinctly indicate where the raw materials came from and where all the waste went. <br /><br />The next draft showed the diagram, enclosed in an unlabelled box. The missing label was noted. <br /><br />The next draft had removed the diagram completely. Dangerous knowledge, it seems...<br /><br />That insular view *is* changing slowly, but not in conservative territory. More effort needed.<br /><br />Paul451, sure, there's a lot of other drivers that can mask an inexorable increase in global temperatures (although despite some much ballyhooed steadiness/cooling, we are still in a decidedly warmer phase than we were 50 years ago) Raised CO2 levels are having other effects as well, though.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13657751929472845332012-04-01T18:12:18.507-07:002012-04-01T18:12:18.507-07:00"the 2030 minima is higher than the 1940 maxi...<i>"the 2030 minima is higher than the 1940 maxima"</i><br /><br />I used the plural terms because it made me sound smarter... <sigh>Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67835981028385546952012-04-01T18:07:34.748-07:002012-04-01T18:07:34.748-07:00Here's a scenario for you all:
Have a look at...Here's a scenario for you all:<br /><br />Have a look at this temp graph...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/WMOtemp2008.gif" rel="nofollow">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/WMOtemp2008.gif</a><br /><br />...and ignore the general warming trend, instead look at the other apparent cycle. A local high around 1875, a low at 1910, another high at 1940, a low... well, there's a bubble in the middle, but say 1960. And another high just after 2000. So 35, 30, 20, 40+ years between respective peaks/troughs. Say the 1960 low is actually a 1970 low, hidden by late-20th Century AGW/HGCC. So you're looking at an approximately 60 year cycle, imposed over (or under) the more general warming. (Note: This "cycle" almost certainly doesn't exist.)<br /><br />Now if 2000-and-a-bit is the last peak, then the next trough is around 2030-ish. The next peak around 2060.<br /><br />So if the current down-cycle is enough balance or overwhelm AGW, the next 30 years will see flat or even declining temperatures. Then around the 2030s, the warming phase of the cycle will kick in. The next 30 years (2030-2060) would be (like 1970-2000) cyclic-warming on top of Global-Warming.<br /><br />Think about what the next 30 years will do to climate change politics. Deniers have proof, Proof!, PROOF! that climate change is a myth, for 30 years. The fact that the global average temperature doesn't drop below mid-1990's levels, that the 2030 minima is higher than the 1940 maxima, is all irrelevant; clearly warming has stopped, and keeps on stopping, year after year, decade after decade... until it doesn't again.<br /><br />Given the difficulty in getting any serious progress on carbon emissions, this plateau/decline will delay any action of climate change until well after 2030 - and probably after 2060 given how long it will take to re-acquire political acceptance of AGW after 30 years of denier victory. And right then, there'll be another local down-turn. Political cycle next repeats around 2110.<br /><br />--<br /><br />1938 Royal Society of Meteorology paper by English engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, attempting to estimate the role of CO2 in global warming.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xCallendar.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xCallendar.htm</a><br /><br />Plus ça freakin' change, bitches.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-33416363520918655222012-04-01T17:35:20.827-07:002012-04-01T17:35:20.827-07:00Ian Gould:
In about 10 to the 50th years, most of...Ian Gould:<br /><i><br />In about 10 to the 50th years, most of the protons in the universe will have decayed and matter as we know it will have largely ceased to exist.<br /><br />So let's take the long view, right?<br /><br />Sorry, Locum but some of us actually want this particular civilization to survive and prosper.<br /></i><br /><br />Paul Krugman continually addresses this sort of thing in the sphere of economics. He often has to remind us that the science of economics doesn't go much good if, during a metaphorical storm at sea, the best it can do is to predict that the sea will be calm again in a week's time. To be of any use at all, it has to be able to provide guidance for the immediate problem, not to successfully predict that "All things end, so who cares what happens twixt now and then."LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87965718483135246472012-04-01T16:58:14.343-07:002012-04-01T16:58:14.343-07:00RandyB says: "I'm not sliding past anythi...RandyB says: "I'm not sliding past anything. I just don't think the action is worth the cost. TWODA is nice but not everyone agrees on which things those are. Does every TWODA just happen to have an Obama campaign-bundler associated with it?"<br /><br />Bullshit and then bullshit squared. Then bullshit to the bullshit power.<br /><br />The thing that has us steamed is the refusal of your side to even discuss TWODA. The whole and entire agenda of the right is to prevent discussion of TWODA. No negotiation, compromise or mixed solutions. No talk of market tweakings that might gently ease in important new technologies. No $$%#@#! RESEARCH into new methods.<br /><br />So don't you even try to act all-reasonable here. Obama and the dems have come to the table offering everything under the sun, including market-based TWODAs and boosts in R&D. <br /><br />Lomberg's role was not as unalloyedly reasonable as you make it out to be. He has migrated considerably, because he is smart enough to see his old positions were fast turning into lunacy. And that prominent denialists will probably be sued someday, for tort damages by their victims. (The class action suits may go down as far as YOU RandyB. Think about it.)<br /><br /> And even so, Lomberg comes across as all: "Both sides are crazy vehement and look at this new thing what I invented called NEGOTIATION!"<br /><br />BULLSHIT to the uttergoogleshit. This is just another delaying tactic. The right has used every tobacco and cars-don't-make-smog tactic to delay the inevitable. Delaying (and profiting) so long that our children are grievously harmed. Okay. Now a FEW of them are saying "let's start being willing to negotiate, you liberal fanatics you." But that's still stalling. There's still no sitting down at the table!<br /><br />Ian said: "The cost impacts of global warming are not linear, they increase on an exponential basis with the level of warming."<br /><br />Exactly. Especially if some level of warming is the tipping point for releasing the methane locked in arctic sub-ocean and tundra hydrates. Below that point, we might eke by. Above it, a shitstorm...<br /><br />... whereupon we hunt every denialist and take every last bit of property they own and give it all to victims of their horrific tobaccanist "cars-don't-cause-smog" imbecility.<br /><br />(I hope the Koch boys don't expect their heirs to actually own stuff, at this rate. Geez, show these guys 1789 France.)David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21232986460544394662012-04-01T15:51:55.410-07:002012-04-01T15:51:55.410-07:00Finally, does it bother anyone that the people who...Finally, does it bother anyone that the people who are telling Locum and Randy that there's plenty of time to respond and that the threat of global warming may have been overstated are the same people who said that America had to invade Iraq because of the imminent threat of WMDs?<br /><br />THESE are the people whose expertise in risk assessment you defer to?Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04352147295160200128noreply@blogger.com