Remember me
▼ Content

water and air have a moderating effect and a heating effect


water and air have a moderating effect and a heating effect17-09-2016 04:37
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
Compare the moon and Earth. The moon has no water, no air. During day when there is light moon is scorching hot, at night when there is no light moon is freezing cold, average temperature about -15 C. Earth has water and air, Earth average temperature about 15 C. Earth is cool at day when there is light, warm at night when there is no light, because water and air moderate temperature. Compare Scotland and Quebec. Scotland has lots of maritime effect and has little temperature variation throughout the year. Quebec has little maritime effect and has hot summers and cold winters. Scotland has much higher average annual temperature than Quebec by about 15 C.
Edited on 17-09-2016 04:47
17-09-2016 05:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tai Hai Chen, your posts are a bit confusing in terms of what the larger goal is. Do you think that the Earth is warming or not?
17-09-2016 11:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1204)
What we have here is the common internet troll.
17-09-2016 12:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Compare the moon and Earth. The moon has no water, no air. During day when there is light moon is scorching hot, at night when there is no light moon is freezing cold, average temperature about -15 C. Earth has water and air, Earth average temperature about 15 C. Earth is cool at day when there is light, warm at night when there is no light, because water and air moderate temperature. Compare Scotland and Quebec. Scotland has lots of maritime effect and has little temperature variation throughout the year. Quebec has little maritime effect and has hot summers and cold winters. Scotland has much higher average annual temperature than Quebec by about 15 C.


The top of earth's atmosphere is the same temperature as the moon.

The rest of the warmth down here is to be expected from the compression of gas. The hypothesis of there being an additional component due to a greenhous effect is largely accepted. I have seen a paper which says that it is not needed to account for the surface temperatures we have. I don't know which is correct.

I do know that the projected warming will not cause much trouble at all compared to the millions of deaths we currently cause due to the use of food as fuel.
17-09-2016 18:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
We have enough food to feed everybody! If you want to stop their deaths, support greater welfare, as well as support for third-world counties. You have chosen a very ineffective hill to die on.
17-09-2016 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
We have enough food to feed everybody! If you want to stop their deaths, support greater welfare, as well as support for third-world counties. You have chosen a very ineffective hill to die on.


Welfare will not save the world. It will destroy it.

Welfare is dependency. Those on welfare are dependent on the decision of a very few people, who are now lords of their lives.

Such live in a pit of hell. It is very difficult to get out of welfare, once dependent on it, because it takes work.

Wars, dictators, and oligarchies create shortages by preventing distribution and often by preventing economic growth directly, including agriculture.

Poor land can be dealt with. We have this technology. Lack of water can be dealt with. We have this technology also. Much of this technology is stopped by environmentalists.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 00:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Then what do you suppose we should do? Let people die on the streets?

It is true that is hard to get out of poverty. Do you think that welfare makes it easier or harder?
18-09-2016 01:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Then what do you suppose we should do? Let people die on the streets?

It is true that is hard to get out of poverty. Do you think that welfare makes it easier or harder?


Harder. Much harder.

We cannot end their wars for them (without destroying them). People are going to die on the streets and in the battlefield.

If it's any comfort, no one gets out of this life alive.

IF (and that's a big 'if', bolded and everything
) we can get past the wars and oppressive governments, people can actually feed themselves. Poor land we can deal with. We can help them with that. That's a far better 'welfare', because it doesn't build dependency. It builds independency. While the initial knowledge for that technology in a country is not free, it is vastly cheaper compared to the wealth you generate from it, as long as some government or warlord doesn't come around to steal it.

Do what you can do. That's all you can do. You cannot be held to what others do, and you cannot control what others do.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-09-2016 01:17
18-09-2016 01:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How does giving people money to help them out of a tough spot make it harder for them to get out of a tough spot?

The current economic system induces, nay, requires a bottom class fully entrenched in poverty. How do you plan to fix that without either welfare or a great change in economics?

And furthermore, your philosophy of "each person do what they can do" doesn't work. To fix things, we need to work together. The government is the only such organization that has the power to do such things, the slightest chance of being affected by the public opinion in the tiniest way, and the authority to determine what should happen.

Also, corporations are like the government, but worse. No accountability except through government, more freedom, literally set up for the sole purpose of maximizing quarterly profit, how can you possibly prefer a corporation-run US to a government-run US? The government is the only thing keeping the corporations from having a monopoly on power.
18-09-2016 01:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How does giving people money to help them out of a tough spot make it harder for them to get out of a tough spot?

The current economic system induces, nay, requires a bottom class fully entrenched in poverty. How do you plan to fix that without either welfare or a great change in economics?

And furthermore, your philosophy of "each person do what they can do" doesn't work. To fix things, we need to work together. The government is the only such organization that has the power to do such things, the slightest chance of being affected by the public opinion in the tiniest way, and the authority to determine what should happen.

Also, corporations are like the government, but worse. No accountability except through government, more freedom, literally set up for the sole purpose of maximizing quarterly profit, how can you possibly prefer a corporation-run US to a government-run US? The government is the only thing keeping the corporations from having a monopoly on power.

OH . MY . . F . U . C . K . I . N . G . GODLESSNESS.

Karl Marx is back from the grave. One absurdly false statement after another.

We already covered this, i.e. you want the people to grovel helplessly before an omnipotent government. You want everyone to be equally broke in the name of fairness and you want to demonize anyone who is fortunate enough to have nice things.

You hate humanity. You're not happy until everyone's not happy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 03:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
OH . MY . . F . U . C . K . I . N . G . GODLESSNESS.

Karl Marx is back from the grave. One absurdly false statement after another.


Is the second sentence describing yourself? I'm not actually Communistic. I'm more of a socialist.

We already covered this, i.e. you want the people to grovel helplessly before an omnipotent government. You want everyone to be equally broke in the name of fairness and you want to demonize anyone who is fortunate enough to have nice things.

You hate humanity. You're not happy until everyone's not happy.


Really? We covered this?

You want the people to grovel helplessly before an omnipotent government.


No. I do not. I want the people not to be helpless before an uncaring machine that extracts their labor and leaves them broke.

You want everyone to be equally broke in the name of fairness.


If we took all wealth and redistributed it (not that I want that!), everyone would be equally broke in the sense that everything in my oven is equally cool. We have enough wealth for everyone to live decently.

You want to demonize anyone who is fortunate enough to have nice things.


I want to assert the inhumanity of those who benefit from worsening the lives of the poor.

You hate humanity. You're not happy until everyone's not happy.


The corporations don't have "happiness" in mind. They aren't looking out for anybody but themselves. I am, because I have compassion.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm not actually Communistic. I'm more of a socialist.

I correctly identified you as a Marxist.

jwoodward48 wrote:]Really? We covered this?

Yes. What part would you like to rehash?

jwoodward48 wrote:No. I do not. I want the people not to be helpless before an uncaring machine that extracts their labor and leaves them broke.

Capitalism is individual freedom that you claim "doesn't work." You want an invasive, omnipotent government making personal choices for the people in the name of being fair.

jwoodward48 wrote:If we took all wealth and redistributed it (not that I want that!), everyone would be equally broke in the sense that everything in my oven is equally cool. We have enough wealth for everyone to live decently.

We have a functioning economy. You want to destroy that for everyone because you apparently hate everyone.

jwoodward48 wrote:I want to assert the inhumanity of those who benefit from worsening the lives of the poor.

Give me an example. Is WalMart among those who are "exploiting" the poor? What about Shell Oil?

jwoodward48 wrote:The corporations don't have "happiness" in mind.

Corporations are rewarded for adding value, i.e. by offering goods and services that are in demand. Adding value to society is a great thing, and it creates job. Corporations are a huge win/win/win for the world and for humanity. Only someone who hates his fellow man would seek to eliminate those who are making the world better.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 08:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How does giving people money to help them out of a tough spot make it harder for them to get out of a tough spot?
They get lazy. The longer they are on welfare, the lazier they get.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The current economic system induces, nay, requires a bottom class fully entrenched in poverty.
True. You can blame fascist and socialist programs for that. The government needs a poverty class to justify its fascist and socialist programs.

Capitalist systems do not require a poverty class. There is no class. There are people willing to work and there are not.

jwoodward48 wrote:
How do you plan to fix that without either welfare or a great change in economics?
I am not going to fix it. That would require a civil war.
jwoodward48 wrote:
And furthermore, your philosophy of "each person do what they can do" doesn't work.
Bullshit. One man invented the practical electric light. One man created the electrical distribution system we use today. One man created the pattern we use for all operating system today, either Windows, Mac, or Unix. Two men created the primary systems programming language for those systems. One man created improved processes that caused the price of steel to drop so everyone could afford it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
To fix things, we need to work together.
You are NOT talking about working together. You are talking about taking MY wealth by force and giving it to another who didn't earn it. F**k you.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only such organization that has the power to do such things,
The U.S. government does not legally have this power.
jwoodward48 wrote:
the slightest chance of being affected by the public opinion in the tiniest way,
Government is not nearly as sensitive to public opinion as you think. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to steal from them.
jwoodward48 wrote:
and the authority to determine what should happen.
They do NOT have this authority.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, corporations are like the government, but worse.
I am a corporation and I work with corporations. F**k you.
jwoodward48 wrote:
No accountability except through government,
I am accountable to my customers. So are the corporations I work with. Government is not accountable to anything but itself.
jwoodward48 wrote:
more freedom,
Government is NOT freedom. Get your heat outta your ass.
jwoodward48 wrote:
literally set up for the sole purpose of maximizing quarterly profit,
Profit is food. Profit is the building. Profit is what makes the payroll. Profit is good. It means the customer is happy (or there would be no profit), the investors are happy (meaning they'll be willing to invest more), the employees happy (they have a job, a place to live, food on the table, etc), the suppliers are happy (there is still a corporation to sell to), and government is happy (there is still something to steal from).

You can take your idea that profit is evil and go stick it in your ass while you're waiting for your welfare check from your uncaring lords.
jwoodward48 wrote:
how can you possibly prefer a corporation-run US to a government-run US?

Want to know the answer to world peace? Profit. If you are trading with them, you won't be going to war with them.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only thing keeping the corporations from having a monopoly on power.

Government IS a monopoly on power for the power that has been given to them or for the power they have usurped.

Corporate monopolies are self destructive. They cannot stop others from out competing them.
Examples throughout the United States: IBM - Microsoft - Eagle Hardware (now Lowes) - Sears - Starbucks

Every one of these lost their monopoly because of competition. In several cases, the former monopoly is little more than a shadow of what it was, such as IBM, Microsoft, and Sears.

Next time you go preaching fascism, I will properly tell you to go to hell.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 10:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How does giving people money to help them out of a tough spot make it harder for them to get out of a tough spot?
They get lazy. The longer they are on welfare, the lazier they get.


victim blamer

jwoodward48 wrote:
The current economic system induces, nay, requires a bottom class fully entrenched in poverty.
True. You can blame fascist and socialist programs for that. The government needs a poverty class to justify its fascist and socialist programs.

Capitalist systems do not require a poverty class. There is no class. There are people willing to work and there are not.


victim blamer

jwoodward48 wrote:
How do you plan to fix that without either welfare or a great change in economics?
I am not going to fix it. That would require a civil war.


agreed


jwoodward48 wrote:
And furthermore, your philosophy of "each person do what they can do" doesn't work.
Bullshit. One man invented the practical electric light. One man created the electrical distribution system we use today. One man created the pattern we use for all operating system today, either Windows, Mac, or Unix. Two men created the primary systems programming language for those systems. One man created improved processes that caused the price of steel to drop so everyone could afford it.


Now I will unapologetically say:

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE

Popular views of science involve the "great men," but most of the progress in science was done by a great amount people who didn't stand out. One man may have made the electric light practical, but how many thousand men improved it before him?

Newton said, "If I have seen further than most, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Good thought, but doesn't quite go far enough. How about this: "If I have seen further than most, it is only because I have stood on thousands of years' worth of common scientists working for the progress of science, rarely seeing publicity or fame, but contributing more to science than the "giants"." (Of course, that's too long.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
To fix things, we need to work together.
You are NOT talking about working together. You are talking about taking MY wealth by force and giving it to another who didn't earn it. F**k you.


compassionless bubble-inhabitant

jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only such organization that has the power to do such things,
The U.S. government does not legally have this power.


I was referring to the ability to do so. Authority is below.

jwoodward48 wrote:
the slightest chance of being affected by the public opinion in the tiniest way,
Government is not nearly as sensitive to public opinion as you think. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to steal from them.


Government is biased to support the common people - one man one vote. (At least, it should be, but Citizens United got rid of that bright idea.) Corporations literally care zilch about what people say, except if they talk with their wallets. Guess who the corporations are exploiting? People with very little in their wallets. TIL people without money don't actually matter

jwoodward48 wrote:
and the authority to determine what should happen.
They do NOT have this authority.


Fine. Do I care? I would burn a thousand Constitutions to save one life.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, corporations are like the government, but worse.
I am a corporation and I work with corporations. F**k you.


Today, I heard a new aspect of the "corporations are people" argument - somebody claiming to be a corporation!

"A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners."

jwoodward48 wrote:
No accountability except through government,
I am accountable to my customers. So are the corporations I work with. Government is not accountable to anything but itself.


As before, corporation are only accountable to wallets. People only matter because they have wallets. Bigger wallet = matters more.

Government can, at least in theory, reflect the wishes of the people.

jwoodward48 wrote:
more freedom,
Government is NOT freedom. Get your heat outta your ass.


TIL that complete anarchy is freer than our current situation. Except that somebody's always going to have a given power. I'd take our current government over a military dictatorship forged from the ashes of a failed democracy any day.

jwoodward48 wrote:
literally set up for the sole purpose of maximizing quarterly profit,
Profit is food. Profit is the building. Profit is what makes the payroll. Profit is good. It means the customer is happy (or there would be no profit), the investors are happy (meaning they'll be willing to invest more), the employees happy (they have a job, a place to live, food on the table, etc), the suppliers are happy (there is still a corporation to sell to), and government is happy (there is still something to steal from).

You can take your idea that profit is evil and go stick it in your ass while you're waiting for your welfare check from your uncaring lords.


I don't see many happy Wal-Mart base-level employees.

Profit is not evil per se. Valuing profit over human lives, to the point of extracting money from them in the great machine, leaving them stuck in poverty with almost no way out, is.

jwoodward48 wrote:
how can you possibly prefer a corporation-run US to a government-run US?

Want to know the answer to world peace? Profit. If you are trading with them, you won't be going to war with them.


TIL that peace is more important than freedom

jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only thing keeping the corporations from having a monopoly on power.

Government IS a monopoly on power for the power that has been given to them or for the power they have usurped.

Corporate monopolies are self destructive. They cannot stop others from out competing them.
Examples throughout the United States: IBM - Microsoft - Eagle Hardware (now Lowes) - Sears - Starbucks

Every one of these lost their monopoly because of competition. In several cases, the former monopoly is little more than a shadow of what it was, such as IBM, Microsoft, and Sears.


Ahh, now, see, here's the thing. It doesn't usually matter which corporations are in power - they share interests outside of the realm of profit competition. Lowering the minimum wage helps most corporations. Reducing regulations helps most corporations. This is a conspiracy of interests, in which the big battle between Wal-Mart and Mall-Wart leaves the common man at a great disadvantage.

Next time you go preaching fascism, I will properly tell you to go to hell.


And next time you go preaching anarchy, I will properly tell you to get real.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 12:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How does giving people money to help them out of a tough spot make it harder for them to get out of a tough spot?
They get lazy. The longer they are on welfare, the lazier they get.


victim blamer
You bet. I will quite definitely blame the victim here. In most cases, they have chosen to stay on welfare voluntarily.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The current economic system induces, nay, requires a bottom class fully entrenched in poverty.
True. You can blame fascist and socialist programs for that. The government needs a poverty class to justify its fascist and socialist programs.

Capitalist systems do not require a poverty class. There is no class. There are people willing to work and there are not.


victim blamer

Wrong. No victim is even mentioned here, other than as pawns to be manipulated by their lords.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How do you plan to fix that without either welfare or a great change in economics?
I am not going to fix it. That would require a civil war.


agreed


jwoodward48 wrote:
And furthermore, your philosophy of "each person do what they can do" doesn't work.
Bullshit. One man invented the practical electric light. One man created the electrical distribution system we use today. One man created the pattern we use for all operating system today, either Windows, Mac, or Unix. Two men created the primary systems programming language for those systems. One man created improved processes that caused the price of steel to drop so everyone could afford it.


Now I will unapologetically say:

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE

Popular views of science involve the "great men," but most of the progress in science was done by a great amount people who didn't stand out. One man may have made the electric light practical, but how many thousand men improved it before him?

None. I am not referring to science. I am referring to men who have made great contributions by themselves. Their idea was theirs, regardless of being technology and not science, and regardless of whatever help they brought to bear on their idea.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Newton said, "If I have seen further than most, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Good thought, but doesn't quite go far enough. How about this: "If I have seen further than most, it is only because I have stood on thousands of years' worth of common scientists working for the progress of science, rarely seeing publicity or fame, but contributing more to science than the "giants"." (Of course, that's too long.)

How little you know about Newton. He was not one to give credit to anybody. He was actually a real ****. He had no one he could call friends. The 'giants' he referred to were Galileo and Kepler.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
To fix things, we need to work together.
You are NOT talking about working together. You are talking about taking MY wealth by force and giving it to another who didn't earn it. F**k you.


compassionless bubble-inhabitant

jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only such organization that has the power to do such things,
The U.S. government does not legally have this power.


I was referring to the ability to do so. Authority is below.

No. They don't have the ability. All government can do is steal from one and give to another.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
the slightest chance of being affected by the public opinion in the tiniest way,
Government is not nearly as sensitive to public opinion as you think. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to steal from them.


Government is biased to support the common people - one man one vote. (At least, it should be, but Citizens United got rid of that bright idea.) Corporations literally care zilch about what people say, except if they talk with their wallets. Guess who the corporations are exploiting? People with very little in their wallets. TIL people without money don't actually matter

You need to study structure of government. You need to remember the argument I already explained to you concerning success metrics of governments.

DON'T attack the corporations. When you do so, you attack me. You are pissing me off. I do not force anyone to buy something I offer. No corporation I know does.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
and the authority to determine what should happen.
They do NOT have this authority.


Fine. Do I care? I would burn a thousand Constitutions to save one life.
You are talking treason. You will kill millions to save that life. DON'T discard the Constitution or the constitution of any State. I utterly reject your attempt to justify the destruction of this nation and to overrule the will of it's people. People have given their very lives to defend those documents and what they represent. They have shed their blood so you can be an ingrate. F**k you.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, corporations are like the government, but worse.
I am a corporation and I work with corporations. F**k you.


Today, I heard a new aspect of the "corporations are people" argument - somebody claiming to be a corporation!

"A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners."
This is new to you? What rock have you been hiding under for the past couple of centuries?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
No accountability except through government,
I am accountable to my customers. So are the corporations I work with. Government is not accountable to anything but itself.


As before, corporation are only accountable to wallets. People only matter because they have wallets. Bigger wallet = matters more.

Government can, at least in theory, reflect the wishes of the people.

Dope. I do not change my price because of the relative size of anyone's wallet. No corporation I know does.Not even the 'snob' product suppliers.

The ONLY entities that cares how much is in your wallet are loan originators and the IRS...a GOVERNMENT agency.


jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
more freedom,
Government is NOT freedom. Get your heat outta your ass.


TIL that complete anarchy is freer than our current situation. Except that somebody's always going to have a given power. I'd take our current government over a military dictatorship forged from the ashes of a failed democracy any day.

jwoodward48 wrote:
literally set up for the sole purpose of maximizing quarterly profit,
Profit is food. Profit is the building. Profit is what makes the payroll. Profit is good. It means the customer is happy (or there would be no profit), the investors are happy (meaning they'll be willing to invest more), the employees happy (they have a job, a place to live, food on the table, etc), the suppliers are happy (there is still a corporation to sell to), and government is happy (there is still something to steal from).

You can take your idea that profit is evil and go stick it in your ass while you're waiting for your welfare check from your uncaring lords.


I don't see many happy Wal-Mart base-level employees.

I do. They are happy to have a job at all and they generally enjoy their work. No one is forcing them to work there.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Profit is not evil per se. Valuing profit over human lives, to the point of extracting money from them in the great machine, leaving them stuck in poverty with almost no way out, is.

jwoodward48 wrote:
how can you possibly prefer a corporation-run US to a government-run US?

Want to know the answer to world peace? Profit. If you are trading with them, you won't be going to war with them.


TIL that peace is more important than freedom
Non-sensical.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only thing keeping the corporations from having a monopoly on power.

Government IS a monopoly on power for the power that has been given to them or for the power they have usurped.

Corporate monopolies are self destructive. They cannot stop others from out competing them.
Examples throughout the United States: IBM - Microsoft - Eagle Hardware (now Lowes) - Sears - Starbucks

Every one of these lost their monopoly because of competition. In several cases, the former monopoly is little more than a shadow of what it was, such as IBM, Microsoft, and Sears.


Ahh, now, see, here's the thing. It doesn't usually matter which corporations are in power - they share interests outside of the realm of profit competition. Lowering the minimum wage helps most corporations. Reducing regulations helps most corporations. This is a conspiracy of interests, in which the big battle between Wal-Mart and Mall-Wart leaves the common man at a great disadvantage.

Next time you go preaching fascism, I will properly tell you to go to hell.


And next time you go preaching anarchy, I will properly tell you to get real.


Minimum wage is GOVERNMENT interference in free market prices (namely wages). You want more wages, make yourself worth more to somebody. Wal-Mart or anybody else must pay market wages, even if there were no minimum wage at all.

The result of price controls imposed by GOVERNMENT (such as minimum wage laws) is putting people out of work.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 17:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How does giving people money to help them out of a tough spot make it harder for them to get out of a tough spot?
They get lazy. The longer they are on welfare, the lazier they get.


victim blamer
You bet. I will quite definitely blame the victim here. In most cases, they have chosen to stay on welfare voluntarily.[/quote

Where do you get this "information"?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The current economic system induces, nay, requires a bottom class fully entrenched in poverty.
True. You can blame fascist and socialist programs for that. The government needs a poverty class to justify its fascist and socialist programs.

Capitalist systems do not require a poverty class. There is no class. There are people willing to work and there are not.


victim blamer

Wrong. No victim is even mentioned here, other than as pawns to be manipulated by their lords.


"there are people willing to work and there are [people who] are not"

"there is no class"

So you're saying that the only poor people in capitalism would be those who simply refuse to work. Tell me, how are poor people expected to improve their lot in life? And why should they work their butts off just to reach the middle class, whereas if I worked that hard I could get to the top?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How do you plan to fix that without either welfare or a great change in economics?
I am not going to fix it. That would require a civil war.


agreed


jwoodward48 wrote:
And furthermore, your philosophy of "each person do what they can do" doesn't work.
Bullshit. One man invented the practical electric light. One man created the electrical distribution system we use today. One man created the pattern we use for all operating system today, either Windows, Mac, or Unix. Two men created the primary systems programming language for those systems. One man created improved processes that caused the price of steel to drop so everyone could afford it.


Now I will unapologetically say:

THIS IS NOT SCIENCE

Popular views of science involve the "great men," but most of the progress in science was done by a great amount people who didn't stand out. One man may have made the electric light practical, but how many thousand men improved it before him?

None. I am not referring to science. I am referring to men who have made great contributions by themselves. Their idea was theirs, regardless of being technology and not science, and regardless of whatever help they brought to bear on their idea.


Fine. For the record, though, that's the wrong way of thinking science. (Keep on compartmentalizing.)

So if someone figures out the cure for cancer, it's fine for them to charge millions, knowing that this will be too much for some to pay and that this will result in greater deaths than a more reasonable cost?

Yeah. Capitalism **** Yeah. Because caring about profits inherently leads to caring about people.

Come to think of it...

..this is already kind of happening.

I'm a diabetic. I will die without insulin. Thankfully, I have insurance. Otherwise, the incredibly high cost of insulin would result in either a. making the already-hard postcollege moneyslump nigh-impossible to escape, b. requiring me to either limit my already-low carbohydate/day amount, and since I am at the 1st percentile for weight, this could lead to bad underweight issues, or c. keeping my blood sugars high, which could cut decades off my life. Or d. don't go to college. That'd be a shame. (See below for why)

Geez. I sure am glad I'm a fortunate middle-class person who got insulin as a child through insurance and will probably have more money than most after college (read: less debt) due to having a good chance of getting scholarships.* It would be bad if I was poor, diabetic, and had aspirations of going to college without lifelong crippling debt passed onto my family when I die. Actually, it would be bad if I was poor, diabetic, had aspirations of living and lived in your "free market utopia". Because I would die. Medical care is a basic need, and making it private means that medical care will be profit-, not results-, oriented. (In the sense of profits being a result, yes. I meant results as in "save as many lives, treat as many diseases as possible." And if the government has to chip some money off your income to prevent diabetic babies, I don't care how butthurt you are.

*(You doubting that? How about the 35 I got on the ACT? Not even shitting you. Two components with no questions wrong, two components with one or two wrong each. That's about the 99.8th percentile, making me in the top 0.2 percent of high school graduates. Guess when I took it. Guess. I took it during 8th grade. Four years before most people do it, and I was in the top 0.2 percent, probably (scores are less suggestive of ranking as you approach each end). That's like getting over 2300 on the ACT (if I calculated that correctly). Or how about taking Calculus I and II during 7th grade? Or

So no, I am not stupid. I am in fact highly intelligent. For the record, because you've been calling me an idiot elsewhere. If I'm an idiot, I'd like to see how well geniuses do.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
Newton said, "If I have seen further than most, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." Good thought, but doesn't quite go far enough. How about this: "If I have seen further than most, it is only because I have stood on thousands of years' worth of common scientists working for the progress of science, rarely seeing publicity or fame, but contributing more to science than the "giants"." (Of course, that's too long.)

How little you know about Newton. He was not one to give credit to anybody. He was actually a real ****. He had no one he could call friends. The 'giants' he referred to were Galileo and Kepler.


I have very few people I can call friends. Does that mean I cannot produce anything of worth? Does that matter as a scientist? Working with people is important, being an extrovert is not.

Thomas Jefferson was also an awful human being. But he produced the Declaration of Independence, which I hold to be a pretty good writing. (that was understatement)

But even that doesn't matter. What matters is the sentiment that in science, people depend on previous research. So too in the "real world" of technology.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
To fix things, we need to work together.
You are NOT talking about working together. You are talking about taking MY wealth by force and giving it to another who didn't earn it. F**k you.


A diabetic baby did not earn any of that money, no. He does not deserve death simply because his family cannot scrape enough together to feed the profit-machine enough for it to care the slightest iota about his well-being.

Now that's just in principle. In practice, you also have the money being productively put into helping people out of poverty who couldn't otherwise even dream of upward mobility. This helps all of us, because it bolsters our economy. But to me the most important part is getting people unstuck. If you were born into a poor family, wouldn't you appreciate a metaphoric footstool for getting out of the poverty-pit?

jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only such organization that has the power to do such things,
The U.S. government does not legally have this power.


I was referring to the ability to do so. Authority is below.

No. They don't have the ability. All government can do is steal from one and give to another.


...for a given value of "steal," and a given productivity of "giving," this is effectively what I said. Taxing you, helping the poor out of poverty. It helps you some, too, though, by bolstering the economy; you didn't include that in your statement. Besides, what gives you the right to say that you deserve your better starting point in life?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
the slightest chance of being affected by the public opinion in the tiniest way,
Government is not nearly as sensitive to public opinion as you think. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to steal from them.


Government is biased to support the common people - one man one vote. (At least, it should be, but Citizens United got rid of that bright idea.) Corporations literally care zilch about what people say, except if they talk with their wallets. Guess who the corporations are exploiting? People with very little in their wallets. TIL people without money don't actually matter

You need to study structure of government. You need to remember the argument I already explained to you concerning success metrics of governments.

DON'T attack the corporations. When you do so, you attack me. You are pissing me off. I do not force anyone to buy something I offer. No corporation I know does.


I've taken some courses on American Government. I realize that the current government is bad, but repealing Citizens United should get rid of a good deal of corruption. (20% of the situation creates 80% of the problem! Zipf's law is cool.)

Which argument regarding government success metrics? I searched the forums and couldn't find it.

I can and will attack the corporations. If you have deluded yourself into thinking that you "are" a corporation, contrary to the easily-available definition, I'm certainly not to blame.

So when people buy at Wal-Mart because it's cheaper, it's really their fault Wal-Mart is using sweatshop labour? Guess what - "talking with your wallet", such as spending more money at ethical stores, is a luxury. Those near poverty cannot spare the money to make a political statement.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
and the authority to determine what should happen.
They do NOT have this authority.


Fine. Do I care? I would burn a thousand Constitutions to save one life.
You are talking treason. You will kill millions to save that life. DON'T discard the Constitution or the constitution of any State. I utterly reject your attempt to justify the destruction of this nation and to overrule the will of it's people. People have given their very lives to defend those documents and what they represent. They have shed their blood so you can be an ingrate. F**k you.


Look, Constitutions are pretty good. They're valuable. But I don't hold any particular value for their current state. They're changeable by design, and I am simply proposing to change them by legal means.

When I said I'd "burn a thousand Constitutions," I was tired. I meant that the existing situation is not as important to me as helping people. The concept of democracy is one of the most important things ever invented. Childishly clinging to existing laws? Not that important to me. I'm a Progressive, remember?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, corporations are like the government, but worse.
I am a corporation and I work with corporations. F**k you.


Today, I heard a new aspect of the "corporations are people" argument - somebody claiming to be a corporation!

"A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners."
This is new to you? What rock have you been hiding under for the past couple of centuries?


The "corporations are people" argument is not news to me. An actual person claiming to be a corporation is. A corporation is defined as not-a-person.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
No accountability except through government,
I am accountable to my customers. So are the corporations I work with. Government is not accountable to anything but itself.


As before, corporation are only accountable to wallets. People only matter because they have wallets. Bigger wallet = matters more.

Government can, at least in theory, reflect the wishes of the people.

Dope. I do not change my price because of the relative size of anyone's wallet. No corporation I know does.Not even the 'snob' product suppliers.

The ONLY entities that cares how much is in your wallet are loan originators and the IRS...a GOVERNMENT agency.


If the entire consumer base of Wal-Mart threatened to boycott it unless it stopped using sweatshops, maybe it would stop. Maybe not. But claiming that no corporation can be affected by what people "say with their wallets" is foolish, and would actually work against you, as it would mean that corporations would be completely unleashed, with no way of stopping them, on an unsuspecting [strike]moneypile in human form[/strike] public.

I'm not saying that every corporation is evil. I'm saying that corporations are not set up to be ethical, and that evilness increases your chances of profiting, thus making most large corporations evil. It's statistics.


jwoodward48 wrote:
literally set up for the sole purpose of maximizing quarterly profit,
Profit is food. Profit is the building. Profit is what makes the payroll. Profit is good. It means the customer is happy (or there would be no profit), the investors are happy (meaning they'll be willing to invest more), the employees happy (they have a job, a place to live, food on the table, etc), the suppliers are happy (there is still a corporation to sell to), and government is happy (there is still something to steal from).

You can take your idea that profit is evil and go stick it in your ass while you're waiting for your welfare check from your uncaring lords.


I don't see many happy Wal-Mart base-level employees.

I do. They are happy to have a job at all and they generally enjoy their work. No one is forcing them to work there.[/quote]

They're at Wal-Mart because they have no-where else to go.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Profit is not evil per se. Valuing profit over human lives, to the point of extracting money from them in the great machine, leaving them stuck in poverty with almost no way out, is.

jwoodward48 wrote:
how can you possibly prefer a corporation-run US to a government-run US?

Want to know the answer to world peace? Profit. If you are trading with them, you won't be going to war with them.


TIL that peace is more important than freedom
Non-sensical.


That's my point. World peace: worth giving up our freedom for?

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The government is the only thing keeping the corporations from having a monopoly on power.

Government IS a monopoly on power for the power that has been given to them or for the power they have usurped.

Corporate monopolies are self destructive. They cannot stop others from out competing them.
Examples throughout the United States: IBM - Microsoft - Eagle Hardware (now Lowes) - Sears - Starbucks

Every one of these lost their monopoly because of competition. In several cases, the former monopoly is little more than a shadow of what it was, such as IBM, Microsoft, and Sears.


Ahh, now, see, here's the thing. It doesn't usually matter which corporations are in power - they share interests outside of the realm of profit competition. Lowering the minimum wage helps most corporations. Reducing regulations helps most corporations. This is a conspiracy of interests, in which the big battle between Wal-Mart and Mall-Wart leaves the common man at a great disadvantage.

Next time you go preaching fascism, I will properly tell you to go to hell.


And next time you go preaching anarchy, I will properly tell you to get real.


Minimum wage is GOVERNMENT interference in free market prices (namely wages). You want more wages, make yourself worth more to somebody. Wal-Mart or anybody else must pay market wages, even if there were no minimum wage at all.

The result of price controls imposed by GOVERNMENT (such as minimum wage laws) is putting people out of work.


Yes? The government is ensuring that everybody gets a living wage. But of course because it's the poor's fault they're poor, it doesn't matter what happens to them.

That last one is a good point, I will admit. I'll need significant numbers to determine for myself whether or not I think minwage is worth it.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
19-09-2016 03:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
So you're saying that the only poor people in capitalism would be those who simply refuse to work. Tell me, how are poor people expected to improve their lot in life? And why should they work their butts off just to reach the middle class, whereas if I worked that hard I could get to the top?

Because they can get to the top that way. YOU are putting an artificial limit on them here. A result of your own requirement to demand the existence of a 'poverty class' or a 'middle class'.

jwoodward48 wrote:
So if someone figures out the cure for cancer, it's fine for them to charge millions, knowing that this will be too much for some to pay and that this will result in greater deaths than a more reasonable cost?

Yeah. Capitalism **** Yeah. Because caring about profits inherently leads to caring about people.


So...they should just spend all that money doing the research and discovering a cure and then just GIVE it away? How the hell is any company that does this research going to exist???

jwoodward48 wrote:

Come to think of it...

..this is already kind of happening.

I'm a diabetic. I will die without insulin. Thankfully, I have insurance. Otherwise, the incredibly high cost of insulin would result in either a. making the already-hard postcollege moneyslump nigh-impossible to escape, b. requiring me to either limit my already-low carbohydate/day amount, and since I am at the 1st percentile for weight, this could lead to bad underweight issues, or c. keeping my blood sugars high, which could cut decades off my life. Or d. don't go to college. That'd be a shame. (See below for why)

Geez. I sure am glad I'm a fortunate middle-class person who got insulin as a child through insurance and will probably have more money than most after college (read: less debt) due to having a good chance of getting scholarships.* It would be bad if I was poor, diabetic, and had aspirations of going to college without lifelong crippling debt passed onto my family when I die. Actually, it would be bad if I was poor, diabetic, had aspirations of living and lived in your "free market utopia". Because I would die. Medical care is a basic need, and making it private means that medical care will be profit-, not results-, oriented. (In the sense of profits being a result, yes. I meant results as in "save as many lives, treat as many diseases as possible." And if the government has to chip some money off your income to prevent diabetic babies, I don't care how butthurt you are.

Insurance is not government (at least until ObamaCare). Your medicine was paid for by PRIVATE business.

jwoodward48 wrote:

*(You doubting that? How about the 35 I got on the ACT? Not even shitting you. Two components with no questions wrong, two components with one or two wrong each. That's about the 99.8th percentile, making me in the top 0.2 percent of high school graduates. Guess when I took it. Guess. I took it during 8th grade. Four years before most people do it, and I was in the top 0.2 percent, probably (scores are less suggestive of ranking as you approach each end). That's like getting over 2300 on the ACT (if I calculated that correctly). Or how about taking Calculus I and II during 7th grade? Or

So no, I am not stupid. I am in fact highly intelligent. For the record, because you've been calling me an idiot elsewhere. If I'm an idiot, I'd like to see how well geniuses do.)


Yes, you are illiterate in science. It might interest you to know that calculus is not science. Neither is the ACT score.

Yes, you are an idiot. You do not recognize the false equivalence you bring to bear here. Your test result and slightly early calculus class is not an indication that you know science, philosophy, logic, or mathematics well. It means you can pass a test well. The math portion of that test uses nothing more than algebra and geometry.

Yes, you are stupid. You do not recognize why people get pissed off when you insult them without cause.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I have very few people I can call friends. Does that mean I cannot produce anything of worth? Does that matter as a scientist? Working with people is important, being an extrovert is not.

I brought up Newton has having no real friends. What does that tell you? Are you ignoring me again? Yes.

jwoodward48 wrote:
But even that doesn't matter. What matters is the sentiment that in science, people depend on previous research. So too in the "real world" of technology.
Okay. Consider the previous paragraph and response chucked.

Let's talk about invention for a moment.

Anyone that invents, brings about things that exist at the time in a way that has never been done before. They and only they are responsible for that happening. ALL inventors are 'great' men. ALL inventors do it by themselves. They don't require someone else to create the new idea.

jwoodward48 wrote:
A diabetic baby did not earn any of that money, no. He does not deserve death simply because his family cannot scrape enough together to feed the profit-machine enough for it to care the slightest iota about his well-being.

Babies die. Sometimes their parents to everything to prevent it, including obtaining the necessary insurance to deal with the costs. Sometimes they kill the baby themselves, either through neglect, a car wreck, or just murder the child.

Does the baby deserve death in any case?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Now that's just in principle. In practice, you also have the money being productively put into helping people out of poverty who couldn't otherwise even dream of upward mobility. This helps all of us, because it bolsters our economy. But to me the most important part is getting people unstuck. If you were born into a poor family, wouldn't you appreciate a metaphoric footstool for getting out of the poverty-pit?

It doesn't get you out of poverty. You can't bolster the economy by stealing from it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
...for a given value of "steal," and a given productivity of "giving," this is effectively what I said. Taxing you, helping the poor out of poverty. It helps you some, too, though, by bolstering the economy; you didn't include that in your statement. Besides, what gives you the right to say that you deserve your better starting point in life?

That is a metaphysical debate that has no place here.

I will say this: The government stealing money, taking most of it for themselves, and giving the poor a couple dimes left over is not helping the poor. It is theft. If I want to help the poor, and I do, I do it voluntarily.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I've taken some courses on American Government. I realize that the current government is bad, but repealing Citizens United should get rid of a good deal of corruption. (20% of the situation creates 80% of the problem! Zipf's law is cool.)

But you don't understand it. You don't understand what kind of government it is supposed to be and what it has become. You don't understand the history that brought the three pillars which the Constitution stands on together.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Which argument regarding government success metrics? I searched the forums and couldn't find it.

Going to ignore this argument I presented to you already also, eh?

I have given you the argument twice. Go search again. I'm tired of repeating myself to someone that can't pay attention.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I can and will attack the corporations. If you have deluded yourself into thinking that you "are" a corporation, contrary to the easily-available definition, I'm certainly not to blame.


EVASION! I am the sole officer of my corporation and on the board of others. When you attack the corporations, you attack me. F**k you.

jwoodward48 wrote:
So when people buy at Wal-Mart because it's cheaper, it's really their fault Wal-Mart is using sweatshop labour? Guess what - "talking with your wallet", such as spending more money at ethical stores, is a luxury. Those near poverty cannot spare the money to make a political statement.

Get off the 'Wal-Mart is evil' kick. This was fed to you by a school system that teaches propaganda, not history or economics.

Wal-Mart buys products for sale from everywhere made in many countries by thousands of corporations. They do not use 'sweatshop' labor. They are retailers. They don't manufacture anything. People buy products there because they are successful retailers.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, Constitutions are pretty good. They're valuable.
You are a liar. There. I said it. You have openly desired to subvert a republic to achieve your own ends.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But I don't hold any particular value for their current state. They're changeable by design, and I am simply proposing to change them by legal means.

Bullshit. You are proposing to destroy them.
jwoodward48 wrote:
When I said I'd "burn a thousand Constitutions," I was tired. I meant that the existing situation is not as important to me as helping people. The concept of democracy is one of the most important things ever invented.
We are not a democracy. We are a federated republic. The shit school you attended teaches that we are a democracy. You seem to know very little about government structure.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Childishly clinging to existing laws? Not that important to me. I'm a Progressive, remember?

No, you are a mobster. You enjoy stealing my money by force. You enjoy taking away my firearms so that only you and your agents have them. Let's call a spade a spade here.

jwoodward48 wrote:
And next time you go preaching anarchy, I will properly tell you to get real.

I am not preaching anarchy, stupid.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes? The government is ensuring that everybody gets a living wage. But of course because it's the poor's fault they're poor, it doesn't matter what happens to them.

Stop assigning the fault of the government on the poor.

jwoodward48 wrote:
That last one is a good point, I will admit. I'll need significant numbers to determine for myself whether or not I think minwage is worth it.

It isn't. You can't just order businesses to create the cash for the higher payroll out of nothing. The business can't just raise their prices. That would either cause a general inflation (thus eliminating any advantage the minimum wage gave), or the business would fail to other businesses that don't have to pay a minimum wage.

A failed business means NO jobs. It means jobs LOST.

A payroll that cannot expand but is forced to pay a wage higher than market rate means LAYOFFS, and CUTBACKS.

Inflation caused by higher prices means the minimum wage has been neutralized.

ALL of my employees are paid well above minimum wage because I need their skills. I do not hire unskilled workers. Their market rate is what drives their salary.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 06:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
So you're saying that the only poor people in capitalism would be those who simply refuse to work. Tell me, how are poor people expected to improve their lot in life? And why should they work their butts off just to reach the middle class, whereas if I worked that hard I could get to the top?

Because they can get to the top that way. YOU are putting an artificial limit on them here. A result of your own requirement to demand the existence of a 'poverty class' or a 'middle class'.


Sure, they can get to the top - the lucky ones. Rags-to-riches stories are rare. Most often, people can't climb very far above poverty. If we want to discuss this, I have many reasons for how capitalism creates poverty and makes it harder to escape it.

We don't need there to be a poverty-class. Even if a bottom-class exists, ensuring that everybody gets their needs fulfilled as long as they are working, and then saturating the market with jobs (make up jobs if we need some) would be okay, in my opinion. Basically, instead of minimum wage, tax everything more. The richest would pay more percentage than the near-poverty, as now, since the near-poverty have a real chance of falling into poverty if something happens.

My philosophy works to get rid of the poverty class. Ideally, class itself would be done away with eventually, but giving everybody good education, healthcare, etc. would be a great step forward. We have the money to do this, but it's held in the 0.01%. We should tax them more, not less! Why are they getting tax breaks?

How do I "demand the existence of the poor"? I am doing literally the opposite - demanding the abolishment of poverty.

jwoodward48 wrote:
So if someone figures out the cure for cancer, it's fine for them to charge millions, knowing that this will be too much for some to pay and that this will result in greater deaths than a more reasonable cost?

Yeah. Capitalism **** Yeah. Because caring about profits inherently leads to caring about people.


So...they should just spend all that money doing the research and discovering a cure and then just GIVE it away? How the hell is any company that does this research going to exist???


In our current situation, companies do need to be competitive. Let's make it so that being evil doesn't increase competitiveness.

An example of where the free market breaks down is insulin sales. There are very few types of insulin, all of them subtlely different. Only a few types are interchangeable, and that requires either waiting a long time to see a doctor or paying for a sooner visit, as well as a period of decreased diabetic health as you adjust to the new insulin type. Most insulin types fill a particular niche in treatment, and so cannot be switched out with many other insulin types.

Competition does not effectively reduce prices in this situation. There are very few companies selling insulin, maybe twenty, twenty-five? The manufacturers are even fewer than that. It is very hard to switch insulin types, and this is detrimental to one's health; people will rarely switch insulin to get a better deal.

So why would a company reduce prices? Only if they would get more money. Normally, the increase in customers should outweigh getting less money per customer, but diabetics rarely switch insulin types for reasons detailed above. So rarely is the cost decreased. Rather, insulin costs are skyrocketing - and this is a vital drug! Without it, diabetics will die within a couple of weeks, and long-term damage to one's organs begins within just a couple days. Every diabetic should get as much insulin as they need.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Come to think of it...

..this is already kind of happening.

I'm a diabetic. I will die without insulin. Thankfully, I have insurance. Otherwise, the incredibly high cost of insulin would result in either a. making the already-hard postcollege moneyslump nigh-impossible to escape, b. requiring me to either limit my already-low carbohydate/day amount, and since I am at the 1st percentile for weight, this could lead to bad underweight issues, or c. keeping my blood sugars high, which could cut decades off my life. Or d. don't go to college. That'd be a shame. (See below for why)

Geez. I sure am glad I'm a fortunate middle-class person who got insulin as a child through insurance and will probably have more money than most after college (read: less debt) due to having a good chance of getting scholarships.* It would be bad if I was poor, diabetic, and had aspirations of going to college without lifelong crippling debt passed onto my family when I die. Actually, it would be bad if I was poor, diabetic, had aspirations of living and lived in your "free market utopia". Because I would die. Medical care is a basic need, and making it private means that medical care will be profit-, not results-, oriented. (In the sense of profits being a result, yes. I meant results as in "save as many lives, treat as many diseases as possible." And if the government has to chip some money off your income to prevent diabetic babies, I don't care how butthurt you are.

Insurance is not government (at least until ObamaCare). Your medicine was paid for by PRIVATE business.


Healthcare is a universal right. Not everyone can afford insurance. Private business profits, the poor don't have a chance.

jwoodward48 wrote:

*(You doubting that? How about the 35 I got on the ACT? Not even shitting you. Two components with no questions wrong, two components with one or two wrong each. That's about the 99.8th percentile, making me in the top 0.2 percent of high school graduates. Guess when I took it. Guess. I took it during 8th grade. Four years before most people do it, and I was in the top 0.2 percent, probably (scores are less suggestive of ranking as you approach each end). That's like getting over 2300 on the ACT (if I calculated that correctly). Or how about taking Calculus I and II during 7th grade? Or

So no, I am not stupid. I am in fact highly intelligent. For the record, because you've been calling me an idiot elsewhere. If I'm an idiot, I'd like to see how well geniuses do.)


Yes, you are illiterate in science. It might interest you to know that calculus is not science. Neither is the ACT score.


How am I illiterate in science? Give actual quotes here, like this:

It makes no sense to attempt to limit Plank's law to certain chosen exceptions. It applies everywhere...always...all the time


...except that not only do several other laws have limited applications, this

"However, physicists have known for many decades that the law does not apply to objects with dimensions that are smaller than the wavelength of thermal radiation."

(In case you're wondering, Physics World is "the membership magazine of the Institute of Physics, one of the largest physical societies in the world. It is an international monthly magazine covering all areas of physics, pure and applied, and is aimed at physicists in research, industry, physics outreach, and education worldwide." So it's pretty reliable. You'll need evidence for your claim that contradicts observation.)

and this

"Planck radiation is the greatest amount of radiation that any body at thermal equilibrium can emit from its surface, whatever its chemical composition or surface structure." The greatest, not the only. Less radiation is possible.

"Planck's law describes the unique and characteristic spectral distribution for electromagnetic radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, when there is no net flow of matter or energy." (This means that if the temperature is changing, Planck's Law doesn't necessarily apply; Planck's Law cannot disprove GW.)

Your use of radiation in this way violates Plank's law. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well as the first.


You are scientifically illiterate with regard to climate science if you think that we think that energy is just appearing out of nowhere.

Planck's law applies to all bodies, not just black bodies. It cannot work with a totally black body since there is no light emitted. The only such theoretical body is one at absolute zero.


A black body is just a body that absorbs all incoming light, rather than reflecting any. You show scientific illiteracy.

Grey body or black body, it is the same. Nothing changes about the application of Planck's law...ever.


Except it does. See above. Your naive application of Planck's Law to a system with multiple temperatures, multiple emissivities, etc. does not work.

Surface Detail wrote: The individual molecules making up the atmosphere are not blackbodies - they absorb and radiate at specific wavelengths. This is why emission and absorption spectra exist.


Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation. Spectra occur because of harmonic coupling efficiencies of a frequency of light to an atom in various quantum states. They resonate together.


Spectra replace black body radiation. Molecules cannot emit black body radiation. Only black or gray bodies can do that, and that doesn't include gases.

Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.


...no. Planck is talking about radiation.

Planck's law operates at all times...on all substances...in all cases. Nothing has changed


It may operate on all individual substances but not necessarily on all collections of substances.

An ideal black body has zero temperature. It is at absolute zero. If it is emitting anything, it is not an ideal black body.

Considering that you can't get this simple concept through your head, you seem to be hopelessly lost.


Wrong. About as wrong as you can be.

Go back and read Kirchoff's definition again. You will find the only possible ideal black body is one at absolute zero. This was Planck's effective conclusion on Kirchoff's ideal black body.


A black body is a body that absorbs all light hitting it. You are wrong.

In my opinion, Planck's law is the most solid evidence to date that achieving absolute zero will never be possible. An ideal black (i.e. something that is absolute zero), causes Planck's law to break down, since there is no such thing as a light of zero frequency (direct light, like direct current).


You still aren't getting it. (Besides, the 3rd LoT is the most solid evidence that achieving 0K is impossible - it directly follows from the law that no series of finite steps can cool something to 0K.)

Nope. It simply distributes any energy absorbed to surrounding molecules. It is the same temperature as everything else. It therefore emits the same as everything else. This is Planck's law.


Again, you show a lack of understanding of physics. Molecules on their own, i.e., in a not-dense gas, cannot absorb anything not in their absorption spectra and cannot emit anything not in their emission spectra. Molecules are not black bodies. To assume that since black bodies are made of molecules, molecules must be black bodies is a fallacy of composition, and goes against the concept of emergent properties.

This is where you screw up. The atmosphere has a temperature. At the surface it is the same as the temperature of the surface. The radiation from the atmosphere at the surface is the same as the surface temperature. The color shifts further red due to loss of temperature as you rise in altitude (up to the tropopause). No 'greenhouse' gas changes that at all. The color of emission is the same for all components of the atmosphere since it is not dependent on the composition of any one component. You are making 'greenhouse' gases a magick substance this way.


The radiation from the atmosphere does not follow Planck's Law. This isn't even something initially studied by climate scientists - this is physics! Carbon dioxide will only absorb and emit infrared light in its gaseous form.

Also keep in mind that I have been looking into climate change for less than a month. How long have you been looking into it? And still you make even more elementary errors than mine. But that's entirely beside the point. Extensive knowledge of the science behind climate change =/= scientific literacy. This is scientific literacy:

Understand, experiment, and reason as well as interpret scientific facts and their meaning.

Despite your muddying of the water, I understand Planck's Law better than you do - simply because I understand that it does not apply to molecules or diffuse gases.
Ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences.

I am curious about global warming. I ask questions here, research on the internet, and logically deduce things about global warming.
Describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena.

I have described and explained climate change.
Read articles with understanding of science in the popular press and engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions.

Check. Obviously.
Identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed.

I... think? Climate change is supported by science, and this supports efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it.

Meh. At least my evaluation isn't "commie conspiracy".
Pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately.

Probably? We're mostly talking theory here, so this can't be expressed easily.

I've given a list - now you need to specify which part I'm missing, and why that one part is so direly necessary that a slight deficiency there gives me the label of "scientifically illiterate."

Yes, you are an idiot. You do not recognize the false equivalence you bring to bear here. Your test result and slightly early calculus class is not an indication that you know science, philosophy, logic, or mathematics well. It means you can pass a test well. The math portion of that test uses nothing more than algebra and geometry.


Sorry, did I say Calculus? I meant college calc. Also, Linear Algebra before high school. Is that "slightly early"? Also, college chem before high school. Also, straight A's on all of these. That good enough for you?

Sure, the ACT does not itself indicate intelligence. But my score doesn't indicate unintelligence. And together with all of the other parts (you seemed to ignore my twenty-somethingth place in Astronomy at the National Science Olympiad competition, which is absolutely huge and very competitive), it supports my claim of intelligence.

Yes, you are stupid. You do not recognize why people get pissed off when you insult them without cause.


I'm sorry, you appear to be confusing intelligence with an understanding of social situations and tone. Would you like me to google "intelligence"? Would you also like me to inform you that my intelligence, in this "field" of applied talking-with-people, is offset by mild high-functioning Asperger's?

Intelligence may or may not correlate with social ability (I doubt that) but someone without social ability is not necessarily unintelligent.

But besides all that, I did understand why you were upset. That's why I posted my apology, which you called "empty". Then you ranted at me about how I was so much worse than IB, even though he's nastier, because I wouldn't agree with your awful pseudoscience. (Read through your quotes again. Those are idiotic.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
I have very few people I can call friends. Does that mean I cannot produce anything of worth? Does that matter as a scientist? Working with people is important, being an extrovert is not.

I brought up Newton has having no real friends. What does that tell you? Are you ignoring me again? Yes.


I was pointing out how Newton having no real friends does not necessarily make him a bad source of anything except for social advice. You are making an ad hominem - on someone long dead!

jwoodward48 wrote:
But even that doesn't matter. What matters is the sentiment that in science, people depend on previous research. So too in the "real world" of technology.
Okay. Consider the previous paragraph and response chucked.

Let's talk about invention for a moment.

Anyone that invents, brings about things that exist at the time in a way that has never been done before. They and only they are responsible for that happening. ALL inventors are 'great' men. ALL inventors do it by themselves. They don't require someone else to create the new idea.


i am making marx's point - go and read this

jwoodward48 wrote:
A diabetic baby did not earn any of that money, no. He does not deserve death simply because his family cannot scrape enough together to feed the profit-machine enough for it to care the slightest iota about his well-being.

Babies die. Sometimes their parents to everything to prevent it, including obtaining the necessary insurance to deal with the costs. Sometimes they kill the baby themselves, either through neglect, a car wreck, or just murder the child.

Does the baby deserve death in any case?


Since babies die all the time, it's okay for them to die from preventable things, right?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Now that's just in principle. In practice, you also have the money being productively put into helping people out of poverty who couldn't otherwise even dream of upward mobility. This helps all of us, because it bolsters our economy. But to me the most important part is getting people unstuck. If you were born into a poor family, wouldn't you appreciate a metaphoric footstool for getting out of the poverty-pit?

It doesn't get you out of poverty. You can't bolster the economy by stealing from it.


If you can't get out of poverty using a footstool, you can't get out on your own. If you have a footstool in a pit, but cannot get out, would taking away your footstool be considered help or arsehole-ness?

jwoodward48 wrote:
...for a given value of "steal," and a given productivity of "giving," this is effectively what I said. Taxing you, helping the poor out of poverty. It helps you some, too, though, by bolstering the economy; you didn't include that in your statement. Besides, what gives you the right to say that you deserve your better starting point in life?

That is a metaphysical debate that has no place here.


But it underlies the concepts of ownership, which certainly does have a place here.

I will say this: The government stealing money, taking most of it for themselves, and giving the poor a couple dimes left over is not helping the poor. It is theft. If I want to help the poor, and I do, I do it voluntarily.


Agreed. We need to cut down on things like military spending and pork barreling.

However, you benefit from roads and schools. Taxes are necessary, even if you get rid of

Everybody deserves health care and education, regardless of how much money they have. They are basic human rights, almost as basic as food and shelter. Health care is on the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy. Scientific funding is good and Consitutional.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I've taken some courses on American Government. I realize that the current government is bad, but repealing Citizens United should get rid of a good deal of corruption. (20% of the situation creates 80% of the problem! Zipf's law is cool.)

But you don't understand it. You don't understand what kind of government it is supposed to be and what it has become. You don't understand the history that brought the three pillars which the Constitution stands on together.


I understand that it is a constitutional republic and a liberal democracy. I understand why the the legislative branch is broken up into two parts (so that there is a balance between large and small states). I understand quite a bit of its history. Care to explain why you think otherwise?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Which argument regarding government success metrics? I searched the forums and couldn't find it.

Going to ignore this argument I presented to you already also, eh?

I have given you the argument twice. Go search again. I'm tired of repeating myself to someone that can't pay attention.


I've searched again, with different terms. At least give me another phrase that you think you used, or a link.

It's hard to pay attention to arguments that consist of either "baseless assertion", "damn liberally evil government making mah science all biased", or "hey guys you know this law that doesn't apply to molecules? you're all wrong it uses the magic of heat to apply to everything".

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
I can and will attack the corporations. If you have deluded yourself into thinking that you "are" a corporation, contrary to the easily-available definition, I'm certainly not to blame.


EVASION! I am the sole officer of my corporation and on the board of others. When you attack the corporations, you attack me. F**k you.


I am not attacking your specific corporation. I am attacking the Evil Corporations(TM) that are Corrupting our Politics. I am also attacking the unethicality of large corporations. If your corporation is effectively "you doing stuff", then it's about as ethical as you are.

jwoodward48 wrote:
So when people buy at Wal-Mart because it's cheaper, it's really their fault Wal-Mart is using sweatshop labour? Guess what - "talking with your wallet", such as spending more money at ethical stores, is a luxury. Those near poverty cannot spare the money to make a political statement.

Get off the 'Wal-Mart is evil' kick. This was fed to you by a school system that teaches propaganda, not history or economics.

Wal-Mart buys products for sale from everywhere made in many countries by thousands of corporations. They do not use 'sweatshop' labor. They are retailers. They don't manufacture anything. People buy products there because they are successful retailers.




jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, Constitutions are pretty good. They're valuable.
You are a liar. There. I said it. You have openly desired to subvert a republic to achieve your own ends.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But I don't hold any particular value for their current state. They're changeable by design, and I am simply proposing to change them by legal means.

Bullshit. You are proposing to destroy them.


TIL that editing a paper is actually the same as destroying it

Amendments can change anything about the Constitution and law except for the fact that the Constitution and the government exist. I'm not planning on destroying it, I'm planning on changing it by peaceful means. Not by hostile takeover. Not by terrorism. But through the existing legal channels.

jwoodward48 wrote:
When I said I'd "burn a thousand Constitutions," I was tired. I meant that the existing situation is not as important to me as helping people. The concept of democracy is one of the most important things ever invented.
We are not a democracy. We are a federated republic. The shit school you attended teaches that we are a democracy. You seem to know very little about government structure.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Childishly clinging to existing laws? Not that important to me. I'm a Progressive, remember?

No, you are a mobster. You enjoy stealing my money by force. You enjoy taking away my firearms so that only you and your agents have them. Let's call a spade a spade here.


Let's call an ad hominem an ad hominem, and an insult an insult. Taxes in general are okay. Current government spending is wasteful. I do not support the all the uses of tax money, but I support taxes. Unless you'd like a for-profit corporatocracy or anarchy.

jwoodward48 wrote:
And next time you go preaching anarchy, I will properly tell you to get real.

I am not preaching anarchy, stupid.


Aaand the point just flew over your head.

I am not preaching fascism. You are not preaching anarchy. My point is that you should not call me a fascist, since fascism is "a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted." Opposition is fine. I'm not bitching at you for your opposition. It's tone, as well as non-argument content such as "you don't matter unless you agree with me" and "if you don't agree with me, you must be purposefully ignoring my heaven-sent truths".

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes? The government is ensuring that everybody gets a living wage. But of course because it's the poor's fault they're poor, it doesn't matter what happens to them.

Stop assigning the fault of the government on the poor.


it was

SARCASM

you idiot

i was mocking you

jwoodward48 wrote:
That last one is a good point, I will admit. I'll need significant numbers to determine for myself whether or not I think minwage is worth it.

It isn't. You can't just order businesses to create the cash for the higher payroll out of nothing. The business can't just raise their prices. That would either cause a general inflation (thus eliminating any advantage the minimum wage gave), or the business would fail to other businesses that don't have to pay a minimum wage.

A failed business means NO jobs. It means jobs LOST.

A payroll that cannot expand but is forced to pay a wage higher than market rate means LAYOFFS, and CUTBACKS.

Inflation caused by higher prices means the minimum wage has been neutralized.

ALL of my employees are paid well above minimum wage because I need their skills. I do not hire unskilled workers. Their market rate is what drives their salary.


You probably aren't evil then! Good for you. But other corporations are evil. Your sample size of one corporation is unconclusive.
Edited on 20-09-2016 06:36
20-09-2016 15:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: We need to cut down on things like military spending and pork barreling.

I agree with the sentiment but your statement is so extremely vague and oversimplified that it's like you're hiding something. What, specifically, did you have in mind in all that?

jwoodward48 wrote: Taxes are necessary, ...

Sure. Back at you. Why should I pay too much in taxes? Why should the government be depriving my children?

jwoodward48 wrote: Everybody deserves health care and education,

Nope. We all know people who don't deserve a dime of assistance from anyone. We all know people who goofed off in school, were disruptive in class, who refused to do their assignments and who would never aspire to anything beyond asking people "Would you like an order of fries with your meal?" We all know people who are liars, petty thieves and who will never add value to society. They strive to live under a bridge and to sleep in the gutter. Let them.

We all know women who have no intention of getting married or of looking for serious work, but rather intend on cranking out kids for all that free "per child" handout money that is confiscated from hard-working people who earned it on the Marxist ideology that "Everyone deserves to be honored and rewarded for not adding value to society while those who do add value to society deserve only the harshest of fines."

I don't want my children ever to be denied the ability to participate in some positive, educational/developmental activity because the government confiscated the money that would have gone to pay for the enrollment but was instead diverted to pay for some unemployed baby-factory's $300 hair weave, $80 nail job and her kids' $250 sneakers.

Any assertion that begins with "Everyone deserves ..." is usually false.


jwoodward48 wrote: Scientific funding is good and Consitutional.

Virtually nothing that is called "scientific funding" is for funding science.

I'm sure you agree that it should be highly illegal to spend "scientific funding" on any religion.


jwoodward48 wrote: But other corporations are evil.

Do you mean the ones that are adding value to society by offering goods and services that are in demand?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 18:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: We need to cut down on things like military spending and pork barreling.

I agree with the sentiment but your statement is so extremely vague and oversimplified that it's like you're hiding something. What, specifically, did you have in mind in all that?


I'm no expert on the budget. Nobody understands the entire thing because it's so huge and complex. I'm not hiding anything, I'm just being broad because I'm trying to state that I do not agree with the current government's spending.

jwoodward48 wrote: Taxes are necessary, ...

Sure. Back at you. Why should I pay too much in taxes? Why should the government be depriving my children?


"Too much"? How much is too much?

jwoodward48 wrote: Everybody deserves health care and education,

Nope. We all know people who don't deserve a dime of assistance from anyone. We all know people who goofed off in school, were disruptive in class, who refused to do their assignments and who would never aspire to anything beyond asking people "Would you like an order of fries with your meal?" We all know people who are liars, petty thieves and who will never add value to society. They strive to live under a bridge and to sleep in the gutter. Let them.

We all know women who have no intention of getting married or of looking for serious work, but rather intend on cranking out kids for all that free "per child" handout money that is confiscated from hard-working people who earned it on the Marxist ideology that "Everyone deserves to be honored and rewarded for not adding value to society while those who do add value to society deserve only the harshest of fines."

I don't want my children ever to be denied the ability to participate in some positive, educational/developmental activity because the government confiscated the money that would have gone to pay for the enrollment but was instead diverted to pay for some unemployed baby-factory's $300 hair weave, $80 nail job and her kids' $250 sneakers.

Any assertion that begins with "Everyone deserves ..." is usually false.


Yeah, I can't argue with stereotypes.

jwoodward48 wrote: Scientific funding is good and Consitutional.

Virtually nothing that is called "scientific funding" is for funding science.

I'm sure you agree that it should be highly illegal to spend "scientific funding" on any religion.


Climate science is neither a religion nor a conspiracy. You need to show that this statement is false if you wish to disagree.

jwoodward48 wrote: But other corporations are evil.

Do you mean the ones that are adding value to society by offering goods and services that are in demand?


If I could kill you and process your body into useful, in-demand goods, would that be evil? (I'm not claiming that companies are doing that. I'm pointing out that "produces useful goods" =/= "is necessarily ethical".)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-02-2017 23:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
While you make a lot of good points aren't they sort of counter-productive?

Blacks as a group have been forced into welfare because they couldn't find work. We can guess at the sources of that - discrimination because of the very large percentage of black criminals - because illegal aliens are taking up most of the lower level jobs that young blacks would use as starting jobs - etc.

But the point is that young black men CAN NOT get employment. After awhile you just give up and there is plainly a good deal of that.

If we 1. Deport illegal aliens that so much get a traffic ticket this will open jobs and reduced crime at the same time. 2. Reduce welfare substantially and this will force blacks back into the workforce. It doesn't take long bringing home a paycheck before you want more income and a better job and that will also reduced crime. 3. Take EXTREME measures against gang warfare. This is only a tiny part of the black population but the rest of the blacks live in fear every single day from these people.

So I think that if Trump takes the measures he threatens that it will help black America far more than any of the rest of us. And hopefully he does carry through with his threats.
23-02-2017 18:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]jwoodward48 wrote:


You so obviously do not know what a corporation is or big business that you could never have held a job. So why do you comment on things based on stereotypes that weren't true EVER?

Big Oil is almost entirely owned by retirement funds. Most other companies are held by stockholders and the majority of stockholders are mutual funds owned by thousands of normal every day citizens.

Presenting this as A PERSON that is EVIL is foolish and what the hell are you going to have to say when you're working for one of those evil companies and discover that they are just like any small business - doing the best they can for both their stockholders and their employees because without either they are lost?
24-02-2017 06:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Compare the moon and Earth.

Meanwhile, compare:
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or PHAB, or FAB ( over- temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing).




Join the debate water and air have a moderating effect and a heating effect:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Lion Air 737 Max 8 Crash7530-10-2019 18:29
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?1226-08-2019 19:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact