We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, August 24. 2012
Atheists Are Vampires??
Biology professor developing silicone implant to battle herpes
The Most Interesting Coach in the World, Mike Leach
"Reports say Swift is helping Conor deal with the tragedy."
Extreme couponing - Indiana has seen a quiet whirlwind of education reform
From Roger Clegg & John S. Rosenberg, a major essay on diversity
New Homes For Sale Drop To Lowest Ever; Average New Home Price Plunges To 2012 Lows
The NYT is crazy
Mitt Romney: What I Learned at Bain Capital
The 6 Quadrillion Dollar Climate Change Scam
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
And using Australia’s new carbon dioxide tax as a case study Christopher Monckton demonstrated that it would cost the world “$6 quadrillion to prevent the 6 degrees Fahrenheit of predicted “global warming” that will not happen anyway.”
Monckton is not an economist. so you may want to take his "demonstration" with a grain of salt. In any case, the world built the current economic system based on fossil fuels over a few generations, so it is quite plausible to adapt that system over time.
The climate is changing, always has, always will.
Yes, that's what climatologists have determined.
Humans are insignificant to this process ...
Climatologists have determined that humans are having and will continue to have a significant impact on climate.
... and spending 6 quadrillion dollars to try and prevent 6 degrees of warming is insane, ...
Garbage in, garbage out.
... as is electing a man who thinks that climate change is one of the most important goals of his administration.
Can't imagine the writer has other partisan objections.
Sigh. Where to start, other than to say, must you flack for every pious Liberal cause?*
You don't have to be a weatherman, or even a "climate scientist", to smell a rat. There are too many bright, shiny, spangled badges of fraud pinned all over the AGW advocates not to notice. Even if they were correct in their assertion that there is a problem, that they know what causes it, and they know what to do about it, you wouldn't trust them to carry it out.
Even right from the beginning anyone of average self-possession would be compelled to give these folks the once-over: "The sky is falling!! Faallllling!! Give us power and money!! Quickly!! We can fix the sky."
*Okay, strictly speaking, I don't know that you're on this bandwagon. Or that you're a Liberal and not a Devil's advocate. Anyway there is nothing per se[i/] Liberal about the AGW movement, unless you conflate the desire to jump on mass-movement do-gooding bandwagons as Liberal [i]per se.
The political manifestation of the AGW crowd is a strident call for power, money and control to fix a problem they claim exists and - the really extraordinary assertion - they claim to know how to fix. What's required? Well, first, power and money.
Even if there's a grain of truth to what they say (there is, but only a grain, in the balance), the power and money is what it's about.
So if you are on the AGW cart, feel free to abandon it - you're going to do it eventually, anyway.
Yes, Z is on this bandwagon and every other one you've ever heard of. I'm starting to see these Z posts everywhere: canned, relentless, vaguely inhuman, and uniformly boring. "I'm sorry. I have a limited number of permissible responses. You must ask the right question."
T.K. Tortch: Even if there's a grain of truth to what they say (there is, but only a grain, in the balance), the power and money is what it's about.
Anthropogenic climate change is real and significant. Responding to that will require some sort of international cooperation which could certainly be fraught with corruption and misuse of power. That means finding a way forward that guards against these political perils while addressing the climate problem.
Oh, it's easy. The Corps of Conscientious Technocrats (International Brigade) will see too it.
Bird Dog: How Obamacare Harms the Poor
Should like here:
Bird Dog: How Obamacare Harms the Poor
Deamonte didn't have regular dental care, and that's why he died. It's the very reason to extend basic medical services to the poor. And dental should be included, because bad teeth often lead to health problems. It's very odd that the richest country in the world says it can't afford universal health care, when other developed countries provide universal health care.
Sorry, one tragic example, not even a bunch of 'em, gives either you or the government the moral leverage to institute top-down control of everybody's healthcare. I don't trust you to do a good job of it, I don't trust the government to, either.
As for the "other countries", they can't afford it either, and they don't get the full measure of what they pay for. But, should we get it here, I expect the government, and folks like you, will ever persist in telling everyone what a delight it is even if it's a patent crap sandwich.
Control. It's about control, power, and moral vanity - period.
It's funny to see you pivot on the logical underpinnings of your arguments.
When weather data contradicts Global Warming orthodoxy, you say anecdotes prove anything.
But when you want a sob story to justify nationalizing medicine, anecdotes are conclusive proof!
Oh, and by the way: quoting someone and then saying "that's garbage" isn't the same as actually refuting what they said.
YOU FAIL. Go take a basic course in logic or rhetoric.
Trimegistus: When weather data contradicts Global Warming orthodoxy, you say anecdotes prove anything.
Huh? Please provide a cite to whatever it is you are referring.
Trimegistus: But when you want a sob story to justify nationalizing medicine, anecdotes are conclusive proof!
In this case, we mentioned how it is representative of a general phenomenon. People without basic medical care often developed illnesses that can be very costly to treat. In the U.S., you pay for Deamonte's brain surgery, but not for the dental care that would have prevented the need for surgery. It's a serious problem with the allocation of resources.
Trimegistus: Oh, and by the way: quoting someone and then saying "that's garbage" isn't the same as actually refuting what they said.
We did state our reasoning. It took a few generations for humans to build the current fossil fuel economy, so it is certainly plausible that humans can rework that system over time. Monckton's calculation seems preposterously exaggerated. For instance, simply switching to nuclear power would not cost anywhere near that amount, so it is clear his calculations are in error.
I like the way you gave him a choice. Classy move. :)
He freaking died because he was 12 years old and had teeth so rotted that oral surgeons recommended extracting them. His welfare mom was in and out of homeless shelters. So how in your view should the richest nation on earth deal with a situation like that, short of removing him from his mother before it was too late, i.e., just after birth?
The kid already was on Medicaid. The problem was that the only way to get dentists to take new Medicaid patients at a loss would be to force labor from them in internment camps. Then good luck getting any more kids to go into dentistry. You could quadruple the Medicaid allotments, of course. No problem for the richest nation on earth, right? And while we're at it, how about buying his mom a home, since she's chronically homeless? And buying food, since she's been raising the kid on Coca-Cola? And full-time institutional care, to take care of whatever makes her unemployable? Do you see an end to this line of thinking?
Texan99: So how in your view should the richest nation on earth deal with a situation like that, short of removing him from his mother before it was too late, i.e., just after birth?
In most developed countries, he would have been given routine care long before the problem became deadly. It certainly would have made economic sense.
The kid could have gotten routine care had his mother cared enough to find a dentist who would have accepted him as a patient BEFORE his poor dental hygiene ruined his health, or required a hospital visit where (incidentally) he got the wrong care, and eventually killed him. Even so, the real issue here is not access to routine medical care but the (apparent) disregard (or ignorance) shown by his mother in caring for the welfare of her children. The kids might be excused for not knowing proper dental hygiene, but what's the mother's excuse? And what happened in school with this child? No one there, not a teacher, not a school nurse, noticed the kid had a health problem? Right, government care means you are in good hands.
The problem here is not lack of universal dental/health care. The problem here is the disintegration of the black family. The problem here is the 70% illegitimacy rate of black children and irresponsible parents. The problem here is an uncaring, ignorant single mother with two kids who is living off welfare. The problem here is a welfare dependency without regard to personal responsibility. The problem here is freeloaders who expect others to take care of them. Universal access to health care is a band-aid answer to a story like this. I am no longer willing to be a facilitator for such irresponsible people. I have run out of sympathy and patience. They and their allies need to stop whining about HOPE and CHANGE, and get their own sh$t together.
Agent Cooper: The problem here is an uncaring, ignorant single mother with two kids who is living off welfare.
The mother worked low-paying jobs. Since her son died, Maryland has taken steps to address shortfalls in coverage. She is now working as a dental assistant.
Frequently homeless but never on welfare? Whatever -- the fact remains she neglected her child to a death. The only thing that could have saved him was for other people to provide him with "routine care," apparently without her cooperation. Should those same people also provide him with routine food, routine shelter, and routine clothes -- the absence of any of which could just have easily killed him? Is there any point at which you think kids have got to be removed from deadly homes instead of requiring their every bodily need to be met by outsiders?
"He was raised by a single mother. He spent his childhood in and out of homeless shelters. He was an African-American kid on welfare."
The article said he (and presumably the rest of the family) was living on welfare, as I wrote earlier. +1 for me. If you are not spinning another one of your usual half-truths, I do have sympathy for someone who was working to support her family but ran into a stretch of bad luck during a poor economy. Perhaps Obama and Energy Secretary Chu could have directed some of that wasted Solyndra money in her direction instead of into a 0.1%-rich Obama supporter's bank account.
Amazing if true that a woman whose own child died from dental neglect should now be working as a dental assistant.
Here is a post script: I was interested enough in the story of the tragic death of Deamonte Driver to see if I could track down more details about the circumstances surrounding the dental health problems which ultimately led to his death. The facts are well summarized by John Frum in his National Review article from March 4, 2007. In a word, the culpability of Deamonte's mother can be seen even by the blind. She and her family had state Medicaid coverage. She "lost" the coverage due to her own neglect over many months while she let her children's health problems fester. As Frum notes, her Medicaid coverage lapsed because she neglected to notify the state of her change of address. Even worse, when she enlisted the help of a lawyer at the Legal Aid Society, who was in a position to help her get her Medicaid coverage restored, the lawyer failed to do so. And finally, an important fact that was omitted in all but one article about this story is that Deamonte had at least three siblings. A single mother with four kids who works intermittently at low paying jobs---now if that isn't a prescription for poverty and the possibility of child neglect, I don't what is. As I wrote before, the problem here is poverty compounded by gross parental irresponsibility. Blame the state if you wish, Z. I blame the parent. The facts of the case back me up.
PPS: The facts of this case beg the question of why Deamonte Driver's mother was not prosecuted for child neglect. What we see here is the needless death of a child due to a mother's willful neglect. Her other children fared little better than Deamonte. She should have been prosecuted and her remaining children put in foster care.
This the 33rd cyclical global warming since the last ice age began about 1850 (long before the SUV). Global warming cycles are noted for being very benign and benificial to man animals and plants. This particular global warming cycle is not as warm as previous warming cycles were but was a welcome change from the 32nd global cooling cycle known as the little ice age that caused enormous suffering to man and animals alike. Like all the previous global warming events this one will end too and may already be in the process of switching back to a global cooling cycle. There has been no significant warming for the last 10 years and at the same time record cold weather and snows in normally warm climates indicate a possible change. If the current global warming cycle does end soon it will go donw as a very modest warming amounting to a mere 0.5 degrees C over 100 year time period. It will end with or without the high taxes and special spending pushed by left wing radicals. When we look back on this period in our history the fraud and extortion of the left will be obvious in their attempt to use a normal climate cycle to extort money and power from a largely ignorant and easily duped populace. But like other great lessons in history this one will also be forgotten and no doubt some left wing hucksters will be able to extort legislation and higher taxes to appease the weather gods and stop the global cooling. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I find it a sad commentary that most of us are so easily duped by the radical left. It is much like the priests of the volcano gods who would convince the village people to give them a young virgin to sacrifice to the volcano to appease the volcano gods and stave off an eruption. Today it is give us your money, your livelihood and your rights and we will appease the AGW gods and stop this natural cycle. Long live the religion of AGW!
Zachriel, the trool. Climate changes. A goodly part of what is now the USA was glaciated 15K years ago. No remains of SUVs have been discovered. No power plants. No oil wells.
Sam L: Climate changes. A goodly part of what is now the USA was glaciated 15K years ago. No remains of SUVs have been discovered. No power plants. No oil wells.
That's right. As climatologists have discovered, there are many drivers of climate change, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, composition of the atmosphere, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.
Right! and what we see on TV and in the papers and magazines is: it started recently, and we are causing it, and we're all gonna diiiiieeeeeeee.
Goodbye, V-8s, the Engines That Could
While the effort to replace the V-8 with smaller supercharged or turbocharged V-6 engines is a worthy one, the simple truth is horsepower is also related to displacement. Small displacement engines at the same horsepower as large displacement engines can never achieve the same torque which is the true measure of performance in any truck or car. Not to mention that the higher horsepower will be generated not only by supercharging or turbocharging but by significant amounts of additional RPM - which is an engine killer.
The only way around this and still increase fuel economy is to use diesel/electric technology. Pound for pound, horsepower to horsepower diesel/electric propulsion systems will out perform any straight fueled internal combustion engine by 50% or even higher. Power to weight ratios are significantly higher also. Diesels also can handle a variety of fuels including natural gas (with oiling system of course to keep the cylinders from wearing) which is a plus.
So what really needs to happen is for Ford, GM and Chrysler to start a consortium to design and build a small diesel engine sufficient to power an electric motor with variable drive. Don't say it can't be done - major truck manufacturers have been using Allison variable speed automatics in their over the road trucks for several years now as have fire departments and some ambulance services. As long as you have a robust transmission, it's just a matter of transferring the technology or down scaling it to suit the consumer market.
If you doubt the efficiency of diesel/electric consider this - the GE Evo diesel electric locomotive can move 1.87 tons of freight 523 miles on 1 gallon of #2 diesel. That's efficiency.
Climate Change Scam
It's amusing to watch the Climate Change True Believers wiggle and squirm when their precious game of hide the truth is exposed to all to see.
The average Joe has caught on to their dog and pony show and they don't like it. Too bad.
That's why they shout so loud, and Zachriel keeps pounding away.
Our good friend and commenter Zach provides high quality entertainment and a good chuckle. He's pretty funny for a troll.
Anthropogenic climate change is real and significant.
No, ice ages are significant. We are currently overdue for the next ice age so all this talk about carbon credits will be moot when the earth gets iced up again.