Since I promised to stay out of the other thread, but have been summoned

[babe]

A "reputable alternative health activist" is an oxymoron. Anything reputable done by alternative health activists are mainstream medicinal recommendations done by mainstream medical professions.

authoritarian to the core.

"mainstream" means what? Have we already got some kind of internet social/medical ranking algorithm, sanctioned by the AMA? I know some doctors who are pretty reasonable who just don't like the AMA, and say so.

Used to be, some young buck doc fresh outta med internship could set up a practice and try stuff nobody ever tried yet.

 

[babe]

Thanks for replying. Yes, I read some of those articles at the time of the IPCC report. They are alarming, and deservedly so, in my own humble opinion.

I did read the NBC article about not having children just yesterday. It touched on something I think about often. Namely my young nieces and nephew, and their kids. I never had any of my own, so, in general, I think about the likely crisis they and the younger generation will face. Earlier in this thread,( woops, it was actually in your thread) I said something to the effect that if you yourself are relatively young, may you live long and prosper, and that you, not me( I just figure I got 10 years tops, but of course no man knows the time or place as the saying goes) will learn if the warnings and projections by climate scientists were justified. Or not.

Where I live is long "overdue" for a really bad hurricane, so if a cat 4 or higher can sustain itself in the waters of southern New England, well, maybe I will live long enough to feel the effects of global warming. Otherwise, it's pretty tough to get even anything higher then a cat 2 in our waters. But, southern fish are appearing in increasing numbers here, as our waters are warming, and the erosion I see from the ocean is remarkable. And, for reasons I forget at the moment, the sea is expected to rise higher here then elsewhere.

Anyway, of course I can understand why young parents might question whether to have children in a world facing what we may be facing. I do not see climate scientists as my enemy, or the enemy of humanity. In this thread,( sorry, it was in your thread) I mentioned instances from the history of science where strong consensus paradigms were overturned. But I doubt that will be the case where human caused global warming is concerned. I don't find those thoughts on the climate change clock and children ridiculous. I find them sad, however. Sad that such thoughts are happening at all. But understandable.

ocean currents can pile up water in some spots..... a stronger Gulf Stream, say. steady winds can do the same, or persistant low pressure atmospherics.

If all our glacial/polar ice melts, and the oceans take a decided move up not just on the surface, but at depth, you can expect oceans to rise and rain/snow to increase.... maybe a lot. But at most it will be a hundred feet or so, with an increase in the ocean/water surfaces of a few percent.

But we are overdue for some fundamental change associated with the onset of ice ages. If the sun cycles mean less energy or a changed angle lowering net heat over the northern hemisphere..... if we cruise galactically into some space with different levels of "wind" particles..... if our core nuclear engine fades a bit.... well.... even with that nice warm ocean and no ice to start, it will only be a decade before you're moving south to beat the advancing ice.

The only reason this climate change issue is a "crisis" is because we have a political class with a hankering for more power.

But hey..... Lake Bonneville and Lake Lahontan returning to the Great Basin means we can float our boats.

 

[babe]

The Humbolt River is flooding again this year, and I've never seen so much green all over the GB. Thanks to an augmented El Nino in tandem with a warm North Pacific off Japan.

 

[babe]

Why not? Outside of the usual right-wing confusion about socialism being incompatible with capitalism, it seems pretty on-message for Sanders.

socialism is a lie spread by the top capitalists who wish to use government to cement their competition and chuck them off the dock.

The famous "socialist" Ambrose Bierce could see this lie..... and so could Mark Twain. Bierce said "Language is the music with which we charm the snakes guarding other peoples' money". It is only used when other people have money. Mark Twain said "Let sleeping dogs lie. But if there is much at stake, you'd better get the newspapers to do it."

The great political analyst Andrew Wilkow says "Socialism is not for the socialists" I'd rephrase it "Socialism is for the poor dumb chumps who are willing to believe and be fleeced, sheared, skinned, and roasted."

 

[One Brow]

authoritarian to the core.

Skeptical to the core.

"mainstream" means what? Have we already got some kind of internet social/medical ranking algorithm, sanctioned by the AMA? I know some doctors who are pretty reasonable who just don't like the AMA, and say so.

The ones health insurance companies recognize as being effective medical treatments, for a start. Some people don't like the AMA for reasons that have nothing to do with approved treatments, and some are just quacky.

Used to be, some young buck doc fresh outta med internship could set up a practice and try stuff nobody ever tried yet.

If a few extra patients die, why should you care?

 

[One Brow]

The famous "socialist" Ambrose Bierce could see this lie..... and so could Mark Twain. Bierce said "Language is the music with which we charm the snakes guarding other peoples' money". It is only used when other people have money. Mark Twain said "Let sleeping dogs lie. But if there is much at stake, you'd better get the newspapers to do it."

You contortions to try to get either of these quotes to refer to socialism is a microcosm of the tortured nature of your world view.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Why not? Outside of the usual right-wing confusion about socialism being incompatible with capitalism, it seems pretty on-message for Sanders.

Well, Sanders has branded his message as "Democratic Socialism", and constantly cites Denmark and other countries as examples to why it works. However, it doesn't appear that those countries even see themselves as such. They also have drastically different business regulations. If Sanders touted a message of higher taxes, greater social benefits for ALL, and decreased regulation to drive the economy, I could see a comparison to Denmark or other Scandinavian countries.

 

[babe]

You contortions to try to get either of these quotes to refer to socialism is a microcosm of the tortured nature of your world view.

you believe you have an objective definition of something that does not exist in nature. Well, bees and ants except they have queen bees and an elite caste of attendants to the royals.... but in your imagination you deny the reality that "socialism" actually is slavery. Always some damn royal or elite or most significant master manipulator.

It takes a lot of work to invent an imaginary system and give it a good name. But the fact is it is modern slavery.

 

[Red]

even with that nice warm ocean and no ice to start, it will only be a decade before you're moving south to beat the advancing ice.

During the Last Glacial Maximum(LGM), roughly 26,000 years ago, the ice sheet that covered my neck of the woods was 1-2 miles thick. And it took roughly 6,000-9,000 years to advance from the northern New England border with Canada to the point where it reached the LGM above my home in southern New England. I'm actually not too worried.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The great political analyst Andrew Wilkow

This might be my favorite comment in this thread. I got a good chuckle out of that one.

 

[babe]

This might be my favorite comment in this thread. I got a good chuckle out of that one.

The last straw to break before insanity takes over the human soul is humor.

Of course I wouldn't expect any dedicated, committed believer in today's "Progress" agenda to really just cave and accept the railings, flailings, and rock-star rants of Wilkow…… but sooner or later..... he will be the Majority he touts, because he is right.

He regularly rolls out the economics of freedom vs. any kind of centralized economic ordering imposed by the geniuses who think they know better somehow. And he is right, because when it comes right down to it, people with two dimes to rub together have better sense than any ivory tower theorist.

He regularly rolls out US Constitutional principles, which were born outta snobbish Brit oppression, because it has been the best government in human history and the most responsive to the ruled people.... well.... let's say.... because it has forced all kinds of elities and cabals of schemers to mind their manners a bit.

The idea that Capitalism can support Progressive agendas is not new. China has done quite well with it, ostensibly, by pretending that their business community is not centralized and owned by the Communist Party. But hey, if the Communist Party of any country really wants to prosper their country, it's the best angle they can take at it without just throwing in the towel and admitting that Communism from the start has always been owned and operated by the super-elites of this world.

But I'm afraid it will just take a long time for these false visions of Progress to give way to real progress, which can only come from people willing to take care of themselves and willing to reject the sugary dreams and drugged stupors of political schemers who want to run the world.

 

[One Brow]

Well, Sanders has branded his message as "Democratic Socialism", and constantly cites Denmark and other countries as examples to why it works. However, it doesn't appear that those countries even see themselves as such. They also have drastically different business regulations. If Sanders touted a message of higher taxes, greater social benefits for ALL, and decreased regulation to drive the economy, I could see a comparison to Denmark or other Scandinavian countries.

I'm not sure we can take the opinion of one person as defining how the people of Denmark and other countries would describe themselves. For example, one of Germany main parties call themselves Social Democrats.

Who does Sanders exclude from getting his social programs (not everyone will benefit simple because some don't need the assistance, but that is not the same as being excluded)? Is it really federal regulations that are so onerous in opening a business, or is that mostly at the state level?