“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, September 24, 2012

Arctic farming next?





38 comments:

  1. It's global warming in the summer. But in the fall and winter, the libs switch back to calling it climate change.

    ReplyDelete

  2. In a Sunday night interview with “60 Minutes,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested the emergency department as a place where those without coverage could seek treatment

    “Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance,” Romney said. “If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance and take them to the hospital and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”

    That’s how the federal system is supposed to work: A federal law called EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment Active and Labor Act, requires emergency rooms to stabilize a patient with a life-threatening condition. Since 1986, hospitals have had to comply with that provision to receive federal funding – thanks to Medicare, they play ball.

    A few recent studies, however, suggest that’s not exactly what happens on the ground. They underscore how hospitals can sometimes shirk this responsibility and why emergency care doesn’t work like a regular health insurance plan.

    The first comes from George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, who looked at how well hospitals in Denver actually complied with that EMTALA requirement to treat. Her results, published this year in Health Affairs, showed many instances where hospitals managed to dodge providing care for those without coverage. In one case, a doctor refused to see an uninsured patient; in others, ambulance drivers simply know which hospitals will be amenable to an uninsured patient. She writes about the case of one 39-year-old epileptic woman without insurance, who an ambulance picked up after repeated seizures.

    “The ambulance drove past several for-profit hospitals much closer to her home en route to Denver Health Medical Center,” Rosenbaum recounts. “The ambulance attendants reportedly explained to the patient’s husband that the facilities they were bypassing did not treat uninsured patients. The patient remained in Denver Health’s medical intensive care unit for nearly a week, incurring charges of $66,619.”

    Aggressive debt-collection has shown to be another obstacle, with some hospitals demanding upfront payment prior to treatment. Medical debt collector Accretive Health recently paid a $2.5 million settlement over charges it was not complying with EMTALA

    Romney: Let them use the ER

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Earth is not a static place.
    Never has been, never will be.

    Dobtful it can support 10 billion humans in the standard they'd like to become accostumed to.

    Man had no impact on the ice sheet that once covered NYCity.
    Whay hibris make man reasonable for the sea ice melting in the Artic, or the glaciers growing in Anartica?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What hubris? ummmm, maybe it has something to do with Carbon Dioxide?

      Delete
    2. If it's CO2 why are the Antarctic Ice Volumes Growing in almost exact proportion to the shrinking in the Arctic?

      Delete
    3. btw, I'm not saying CO2 isn't a "greenhouse" gas, just that it's probably not having as much effect on this Recurring cycle as the Global Warmeners are preaching.

      Delete
    4. hunh? Are you suggesting the climate isn't changing rufus, that it hasn't warmed?

      Delete
    5. The hubris, ash, that makes men think they are responsible for efects beyond their understanding.

      How is the ice volume growing in Antartica not factored into the warming theory?

      If CO2 is the problem, ethanol is the answer. No discernable increase in the footprint from distilling plants, as compared to fossil fuels.

      Delete
    6. Sure, it's hotter than it was in the seventies, but about the same as it was in the thirties.

      Overall, all the experts agree that there has been a secular warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age, and that it is, so far, continuing.

      The argument is just on how much the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is adding to it, and more importantly, how much it will add to it in the future.

      Delete
    7. Yes, the data seems quite clear that there is a warming trend and the sceptics are questioning whether man has played a role in that warming. Even some of the prominent sceptics have changed their minds and now agree that man has played a significant role in the warming trend. There is still much disagreement on what the effects of the warming will be (and are).

      Delete
    8. There has been a warming trend for the past 10,000 maybe 15,000 years.
      Ever since the glacier over Brooklyn started to melt.

      How much that trend has been accelerated, if at all, in the past 150 years and the cause of any such acceleration, are both subjects open to debate.

      It is human hubris to think anyone has the answer, to both questions, or that man can impact much influence on the planet, as compared to the sun cycles and orbital fluctuations over time.

      Delete
    9. The desertification of the Sahara, not caused by man.

      It is a cyclical process that operates over thousands of years.
      Wet to dry and wet again.

      Since well before men started the first steam engine.

      Delete
    10. .

      I don't doubt there is global warming going on although there are enough weather related anomilies for many people to continue to question the trend. In this sense, the global warming establishment hasn't done themselves any favors by their willingness to skew the data in their favor and attempt to silence all dissent. Instead of helping their case, they merely fueled the scepticism. Now we are in a state where any momentum for addressing the problem is lost for the forseeable future.

      I personally think that is a good thing for the following reasons.

      1. While man has probably contributed to the trend, it is still not clear by how much.
      2. Even if man is the main culprit, it is still unclear as to whether he has the tools and the ability to reverse the trend in the short term (this century), and even if he could what the cost would be. Some of the biggest supporters of the global warming theory indicate they think we're already past the tipping point.
      3. The real question comes down to what approach you are going to take. Under any scenario, it's only prudent to try to reduce CO2 emissions if the consensus is that it is the real problem. However, do you go balls out as Gore and others suggest and crimp economic growth for the forseeable future or do you adapt as the Netherlands and other countries have done. Which is cheaper? Which causes less damage?

      Some scoff at the word hubris but IMO it is hubris to assume man can turn on a dime and reverse weather trends on a planetary scale given the multible systems that interact to produce global weather patterns. To me, it is more reasonable to assume man has more tools to adapt to global warming than to reverse it in the short run.

      Assuming you have global warming, whether man-made or natural, you are going to have both winners and losers. If you assume man is incapable of reducing the trend in a significant way in the short run, which I do, then the practical approach is adaption. It's cheaper and ultimately will cause less damage.

      .

      Delete
    11. There are numerous instances throughout history where man has realized that his actions have caused him harm and modified his behavior accordingly. Tossing garbage out the window, allowing sewage to contminate the drinking water (spreading cholera), black soot from burning coal, ozone, are all examples where modifying ones 'pollution' has worked. I'm not saying that reducing carbon emissions will be easy or a fix-all but burying ones head in the sand and crying "hubris" strikes me as..., I dunno, infantile.

      Delete
    12. I don't pay much attention to the debate, because I'm absolutely, positively certain that the humans will, as quickly as possible, burn every ounce of coal, natural gas, and petroleum that they can get their hands on.

      What doesn't get burned in the U.S. will get burned in China, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, et al.

      In short, this is not something I can effect one iota, under any circumstances. Any circumstances.

      Delete
    13. Sewage in the water supply, that is a local challenge. It is not a global one. The same is true of trash collection and disposal. It is a local challenge. Both sewage and garbage local problems with local solutions, neither have global scale or scope.

      We can go on a tour of the world and find garbage in the streets and water that is not potable. This in areas where the local population is not as concerned with those particular challenges to public health and safety as we in North America tend to be.

      If there is human caused climate change, a theory that well popular in industrialized America and Europe, is not widely accepted in the developing whirled. Well, there is no local solution to it.

      It is global challenge, if it exists, and there is no human solution.
      As there is no global consensus on any subject regarding fossil fuels. Not from the quantity of the global supply to the prioritizing local utilization.

      The global market holds sway.
      And the market ...
      ... has no memory.

      Delete
    14. CFC's effect upon the ozone layer was a "global" problem - one that through international agreement seems to have been mitigated.

      Delete
    15. Yeah, but the replacements for freon were already there - patented, and ready to go. It's a little bit of a different thing when you're talking about replacing coal, oil, and nat gas.

      Delete
    16. Rat's argument was nothing can be done because it isn't local but global in nature.

      One needn't go 'all in' to address the issue i.e. it doesn't have to be "replace coal, oil, and nat gas" or nothing. There are many intermediate ways to reduce carbon emissions but, yeah, it sure ain't easy.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. No, ash, my argument was that it was human hubris to believe we were having an impact on the 10,000 year trend.

      Your argument was that since humans can effect their local enviornment, we could extrapulate that globally.

      That idea is bordering upon insanity, based upon your examples of water treatment and garbage disposal and the lack of their global success in the face of an immediate provable dire need.

      Delete
    19. While you have yet to make the case that any effort in regards "Climate Change" that humans COULD make, would effect the 10,000 trend line.

      Until that case is made, there is nothing to debate in so far as to what actions or half-steps we could be making should be.

      You have not made a case that there is a course of action that can solve the challenge, let alone convince Charlie Chi-com there is a challenge. Especially one greater than their need for economic expansion and an ever raising standard of living for their people.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. It is beyond doubt that man did not cause the desertification of Northern Africa.

      That is "Climate Change" operating without CO2 or any other human imput. Until you or others can make a convincing argument that what we are seeing in the artic weather cycle is not part of the 10,000 year trend, exemplified in Northern Africa and the lack of glaciers in NYCity, your arguments for a "solution" are without a basis in necessity...

      Delete
    22. Indeed, your arguments are an example of the hubris I mentioned previously.

      Delete
  4. RealClearPolitics

    Ohio (18) Obama +4.1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like Bob has some work to do. :)

      Delete
    2. Maybe he'll change his place of residency, and his family can vote there, legally, this cycle.

      Delete
  5. Mr. Ahmadinejad was asked at the breakfast whether the Islamic Republic had formally lifted a 1980s religious decree that called for the death of the British writer Salman Rushdie, who wrote a novel that Muslim leaders considered anti-Islamic.

    "Where is he now?" Mr. Ahmadinejad said of Mr. Rushdie, without addressing the question.

    "Is he in the U.S.? You shouldn't broadcast this for his own safety."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jerusalem and other Israeli cities were plagued by suicide bombings throughout the early 2000s, particularly between 2001 and 2004 when there were a total of 128 attacks - triple the total for all other years between 1990 and 2008.

    The American victims believe the unused interview will help prove their case that Fatah and Al Aqsa were closely connected and thus render the PLO and the Palestinian Authority liable for damages under US anti-terrorism laws.

    A BBC spokeswoman said: “We are aware of the judgment and we are considering it.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. The number of Syrians in need of food aid has jumped from 250,000 in April to 1.5 million today, the head of the U.N.’s food agency said Monday, as more civilians are driven from their homes by an escalating civil war.

    Separately, the international envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, told reporters at the U.N. that the conflict threatens to spill across the Middle East and is “extremely bad and getting worse.”

    ReplyDelete
  8. I’m going to try to analyze what Israeli strategy might look like if Obama were to be reelected. I don’t want to write a partisan piece — predicting every type of the most horrible disaster and open hatred from the White House — but a serious analytical effort.

    ...

    So with that basis established, here’s Israel’s Obama problem divided into four issues:

    1. Maintaining bilateral relations

    Israel’s government needs to ensure the continuation of U.S. aid, including assistance for anti-missile systems; intelligence sharing; and other forms of cooperation. Unless Obama decides to go all-out on an anti-Israel vendetta, he is likely to see this issue as a low-priority one.

    ...

    2. Keep Obama from damaging Israel’s situation in regard to the Palestinians

    Obama will have to decide whether to put an emphasis on the Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” meaning pressure on Israel to make concessions while the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn’t keep its commitments and makes no compromises. He might decide to do so based on his ideological predispositions.

    ...

    3. How would Obama handle the regional Arab situation and threats from revolutionary Islamist forces that he has helped to unleash and even to put into power?

    In my view, the number one danger Israel faces is not Iran, but Egypt.

    A radical regime now exists in Cairo that wants to wipe Israel off the map; is willing to help Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, on that project; and might get directly involved itself.

    ...

    4. Iran

    Briefly, there is no way that Obama would attack Iran or support an Israeli attack no matter what Tehran does. American sanction efforts would continue hand in hand with Iran going full speed ahead on obtaining nuclear weapons.


    What Does Israel Do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Israel could do it, they would have by now. They can't, they want the US to do it for them, but Obama won't have any of it. Only 23% of Israelis want to hit Iran without a green light from the US. If they do it before November, Obama wins. The US public will rally to Obama in wartime. But Obama will refuse to escalate the war and actually remove the threat. What Netanyahu needs to do is shut his mouth, hope his lap dog Mittens gets in there, THEN do it. Word on the street is if Bibi comes to a sudden stop, Mitler breaks his nose.

      Delete
  9. On this day in 1968, CBS aired the first episode of "60 Minutes."

    ReplyDelete
  10. MOSQUITO

    An insect that makes you like flies better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ROMNEY: "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem."

    To answer Romney: Airplane cabins are pressurized to allow people to, you know, breathe and stay conscious and such at high altitudes — things that are important for everyone who isn't an advanced robot covered in a highly convincing outer layer of humanesque skin and facial features.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay, I'm going to quit referring to the Republican Party as "The Party of Stupid" tm.

    I've decided that it's really not fair


    to Stupid people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For years, Sean McGroarty ignored his mother's urging to save money.

    Then his mother, Karen Zader, 54 years old, lost her job as an administrative assistant. The family home, where Mr. McGroarty grew up, went into foreclosure, and Ms. Zader had to raid her retirement savings to pay bills.

    Mr. McGroarty was shocked into action. He signed up for his employer's 401(k) retirement-savings program last year. "What if life throws me a curve ball like that?" said the 27-year-old radio DJ.

    As older Americans lose jobs, lose homes and delay retirement, their children are watching and reacting.

    ReplyDelete