Political Bing

Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research  Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers,  responded: 'A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for  the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's  statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr. Rose's argument that there has been no  increase in the global average surface temperature for the past  16 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html#ixzz2BWgtW61S
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Just trying to provide facts.

@ Herbie: Obama won, I'm Canadian. I don't have to live with the consequences.

@Sven: You use the term denier. You really shouldn't, we are Climate Rebels.

@Herbie: What was the popular vote by the way?

3 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research  Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers,  responded: 'A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for  the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's  statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr. Rose's argument that there has been no  increase in the global average surface temperature for the past  16 years.

This is what's called an argument from authority. The fact that the guy who said it wrote so many papers means nothing. You know that Newton believed in alchemy? That Einstein didn't believe quantum mechanics could be true? Just because a very smart or influential person believes something doesn't make it true.

No, the idea itself is what must be published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper and afterwards gain acceptance in the scientific community.

Also, the fact that there has been little warming (note: not no warming) in the last decade isn't in dispute. The fact that that implies that climate change isn't happening at all, is.

4 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research  Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers,  responded: 'A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for  the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office's  statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr. Rose's argument that there has been no  increase in the global average surface temperature for the past  16 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html#ixzz2BWgtW61S
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Just trying to provide facts.

@ Herbie: Obama won, I'm Canadian. I don't have to live with the consequences.

@Sven: You use the term denier. You really shouldn't, we are Climate Rebels.

 

@Herbie: What was the popular vote by the way?

Obama most likely won the popular vote, just like Gore did vs. GW Bush. Why do you ask?

@JohnAskew: Popular vote currently reported as Obama 50.1%, Romney 48%.

Herbie

Can anyone find a breakdown of the popular vote among all candidates? All I can find is that PA gave Gary Johnson 0.8%. I'm curious what he got nationally.

@spivonious: As usual, the BBC is not too bad, showing votes by State (clicking the map filters the numbers below to the state's vote results). Does tend to only show 'Obama', 'Romney' and 'Other', rather than the full breakdown.

Herbie

10 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

Can anyone find a breakdown of the popular vote among all candidates? All I can find is that PA gave Gary Johnson 0.8%. I'm curious what he got nationally.

~about %1, not much detail...

http://www.favstocks.com/gary-johnson-gets-about-1-of-the-vote/07917190/

15 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Healthcare costs in Holland are through the roof! There is no incentive to make healthcare cheaper, because there is no competition. Competition can only exist in a free market.

Rank	Country	Total health expenditure per capita PPP Int.$	Total health expenditure % of GDP
1	United States	7,164	15.2
2	Monaco	5,996	3.6
3	Luxembourg	5,750	6.8
4	Norway	5,207	8.5
5	Switzerland	4,815	10.7
6	Netherlands	4,283	9.9

The Netherlands spends less per capita, and less per GDP on healthcare than the US does (these are 2008 figures - so pre-Obamacare figures).

It also has a higher life-expectancy, lower infant mortality and a higher general approval rating of their healthcare system than the US.

So I don't buy your argument that making the Netherlands have healthcare like the US did in 2008 would be cheaper or better.

12 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

~about %1, not much detail...

http://www.favstocks.com/gary-johnson-gets-about-1-of-the-vote/07917190/

I averaged out all of the states and got mean 1.22%, median 1.08%.

Highest percentages in New Mexico (3.54%), Montana (2.89%), and Alaska (2.51%).

Lowest in Florida (0.52%), Mississippi (0.53%), and New Jersey (0.58%).

3 hours ago, Sven Groot wrote

Also, the fact that there has been little warming (note: not no warming) in the last decade isn't in dispute. The fact that that implies that climate change isn't happening at all, is.

Also, here's a fun experiment:  Measure the temperature of a glass of icewater throughout the process of the ice melting...

a moment ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Also, here's a fun experiment:  Measure the temperature of a glass of icewater throughout the process of the ice melting...

Dammit, nevermind.  Keep your climate change conspiracies to climate change threads.

Ha, we've had enough climate change threads on here. I think we can break down the groups into:

1. Climate change is caused by human-produced pollution and is affecting the climate.
2. The earth is warming, but it's a natural cycle. We should prepare for change rather than try to stop the change from happening.
3. Climate change is a myth propogated by liberals in order to get more money for their "green" operations and/or line their pockets.

Did I hit all of them? Personally I'm #2.


Anyway, I saw Gary Johnson's campaign announced a 1.3% national vote on a campaign budget of $3000. That's pretty incredible. It just shows how powerful social media has become in grassroots campaigning.

OK - I HAD to post - but am not going to read 6 pages....

in a nutshell

- republican / conservative / republican mentioned 3 times

- most annoying interviewer EVER

- "lean left social right financial"  ... why wasnt it left social  right sociopathic

- IT IS PLAYING AFTER ELECTION - nonstop

This is what you get from a salesguy running your company. A new UI made of spreadsheet BOXES and references to most corp party in commercials - while you try to sell a product designed to compete with the young urban poster child  

You do know most college students and young people "LEAN" left

VERY VERY disappointed in ad

FARCE  DISGUST  BULLSH_T

ps - and i like bing in metro - too bad i dont bother to use it (rocket dock / Shell Manager startbar)

EPIC EPIC FAIL

Bad MS

@evildictaitor:

First, costs per capita and percentage of GDP tells you nothing about the quality of care.

Second, Holland's GDP is that high because we are a trade port for the EU and we have a huge natural gas reserve, so that figure is misleading.

Third, costs per capita is low, because all costs in Holland are a lot less. Wages are a whole lot less then in the US. A more accurate indicator would be what percentage of income the healthcare costs and what quality of care is delivered.

So I reject the graph as proof that Holland has cheaper healthcare then the US.

What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. That, coupled with that if you have a sprained ankle you get sent in for an MRI and all sorts of test, is what driving the costs in the US up. So the low cost is not in anyway a feat the government can take credit for.

In Holland you cannot sue the physician for malpractice. Even if he chops of the wrong leg, he will never ever admit it. You have to fight government institutions for years to even get recognition that the wrong leg has been chopped off. Then you have to fight the system for years more to get compensation. Meanwhile the physician can continue to chop off wrong legs for many years. The system lacks an incentive for correction. That incentive can only come from a free market.

Government insurance is not going to bring down costs. It's just going to create a politicized healthcare system, where business decisions are made on what 'feels' right instead of what is right. In the end driving the costs up. How to bring costs down in the US? I have no alternative as of yet.

@spivonious:

4. Greenhouse theory is a flawed theory

@Maddus Mattus:

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. That, coupled with that if you have a sprained ankle you get sent in for an MRI and all sorts of test, is what driving the costs in the US up. So the low cost is not in anyway a feat the government can take credit for.

That is what Obama should do with the healthcare here.   Malpractice is driving huge costs here.  It is making unnecessary procedures to cover your butt.    I don't think Obama will do it unless he proves me wrong and he really is a good human being.     I expect costs to go on an exponential rise here in the US.  

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

First, costs per capita and percentage of GDP tells you nothing about the quality of care.

Second, Holland's GDP is that high ... so that figure is misleading.

Third, costs per capita is low, .... A more accurate indicator would be what percentage of income the healthcare costs and what quality of care is delivered.

So I reject the graph as proof that Holland has cheaper healthcare then the US.

Really you're just rejecting the data because you don't like the data, and since you believe you are right, you ignore all evidence to the contrary (rather than using contradicting evidence to inform and fine-tune your opinions like, say, a normal person).

Healthcare costs per capita and per percentage GDP are internationally used figures (e.g. by the WHO) because they take into the economic pain of the healthcare. Total healthcare costs per GDP per person is a percentage of income that the healthcare costs - but it ignores whether that cost comes from taxes or from direct payments. That's why I quoted the numbers.

What I do agree on is that healthcare is cheaper in Holland then in the US. Because in the US the risk of being sued for malpractice is so high, that insurance premiums for physicians is ultra high. 

Those insurances are private sector for the most part. Remember that I'm quoting pre-Obamacare figures. No government insurance there.

In Holland you cannot sue the physician for malpractice. Even if he chops of the wrong leg, he will never ever admit it. You have to fight government institutions for years to even get recognition that the wrong leg has been chopped off. Then you have to fight the system for years more to get compensation. Meanwhile the physician can continue to chop off wrong legs for many years. The system lacks an incentive for correction. That incentive can only come from a free market.

That's just BS. Of course you can sue for malpractice in the Netherlands. You seem to keep flip-flopping to change the facts to suit your own arguments.

I gave you data that contradicts you, and rather than posting your own sensible data you just say "I KNOW BEST and your data disagrees with me and THEREFORE MUST BE WRONG".

Instead, post your own data to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your opinions with recognised data and research, you're probably wrong.

51 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Really you're just rejecting the data because you don't like the data, and since you believe you are right, you ignore all evidence to the contrary (rather than using contradicting evidence to inform and fine-tune your opinions like, say, a normal person).

Don't twist my words. I'm rejecting the data, because I do not think these figures can be compared across countries in such a simplistic way.

Healthcare costs per capita and per percentage GDP are internationally used figures (e.g. by the WHO) because they take into the economic pain of the healthcare. Total healthcare costs per GDP per person is a percentage of income that the healthcare costs - but it ignores whether that cost comes from taxes or from direct payments. That's why I quoted the numbers.

Argument from authority. I don't care who uses them, I reject them on the basis that I don't think they provide a realistic picture. Disposable income in nearly twice that in the USA compared to the Netherlands. Then 4000 sounds like a lot all of a sudden!

Those insurances are private sector for the most part. Remember that I'm quoting pre-Obamacare figures. No government insurance there.

How can increasing the bureaucracy lead to a reduction in costs? It's physically impossible. You are going to have to pay the middle man as well, so cost will increase by definition. As a capitalist, you should know that.

That's just BS. Of course you can sue for malpractice in the Netherlands. You seem to keep flip-flopping to change the facts to suit your own arguments.

I sure hope you never ever get a malpractice in our hospitals,. The examples are numerous,.

I gave you data that contradicts you, and rather than posting your own sensible data you just say "I KNOW BEST and your data disagrees with me and THEREFORE MUST BE WRONG".

Instead, post your own data to back up your assertions. If you can't back up your opinions with recognised data and research, you're probably wrong.

Thank you for the data, but I do not agree that it disproves my point or proves yours.

Let's go on this Obamacare trip and see what happens,..