Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (766189)	1/27/2014 3:16:09 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572417

Embarrassed Global Warming Alarmists Sink To Comedic Lows With 'Polar Vortex' Excuse The IPCC said CAGW would bring "warmer winters and fewer cold spells" Alarmists don't care. They'll invent a lie to cover the theory when the predictions fail. Here are some of the latest headlines along that narrative: “How frigid ‘polar vortex’ could be result of global warming” – Christian Science Monitor “Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold” – Time “US polar vortex may be example of global warming” – The Guardian “Thank Global Warming for Freezing You Right Now” – The Daily Beast “Cold as Hell: The Chilling Effect of Global Warming” – Huffington Post What is really interesting among these and most of the other media accounts on the cold outbreak, is they address the topic like it is long-settled science that global warming causes more frequent and severe winter cold outbreaks. In other words, “It is really, really, really cold throughout the nation, global warming causes everything that people might think is bad, so global warming must cause cold temperatures. Now let’s quickly invent some scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo explanation for how that might be the case.” The latest explanation/mythical creature creation is a mutant polar vortex; first cousin of Big Foot, the Abominable Snowman, Mutant Teenage Ninja Turtles, and the Loch Ness Monster. (By the way, global warming alarmists, are Big Foot and the Abominable Snowman the same? You would know better than I….) Oh, and for kicks and giggles, check out how global warming alarmists and their media allies blame global warming for a future UFO invasion. According to this newest warming fad, global warming allegedly causes a weakening of Arctic air currents that keep cold air trapped in the far north. As a result, cold Arctic air can now break out and savage previously warm climates like a crazed zombie apocalypse. Of course, if global warming alarmists really had predicted that it would cause more frequent and severe cold outbreaks (via Mutant Polar Vortexes, Mutant Teenage Ninja Turtles, Yeti, or whatever), we should see such predictions all throughout the latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The problem is, it’s not there. Nowhere. Nada. Nunca. Nein. Nyet. Here is what IPCC has to say on the topic of global warming and winter cold outbreaks: In IPCC’s Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability, we are told there will be “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” This is the IPCC. The alarmists constantly preach that IPCC is the unified position – the settled science – of nearly all the world’s climate scientists. And IPCC says exactly the opposite of what global warming alarmists now tell us they “always predicted” about global warming and winter cold outbreaks. So we have global warming alarmists consistently telling us global warming will mean an end to winter cold outbreaks. Then, when we have severe winter cold outbreaks, the alarmists say it is caused by global warming and they predicted it all along. It is like in the movie “A Christmas Story,” when Ralphie’s father repeatedly claims the green string of Christmas tree lights blew out, but then changes his story after he has been proven wrong. Ralphie’s Mother: “No, the green is on. It’s the blue that’s out. Ralphie’s Father: “Don’t tell me what color it is. I’m not color blind.” Ralphie’s Mother: “I’m not color blind, either.” (After replacing one of the light bulbs, the blue string of lights comes back to life.) Ralphie’s Father: “See, I told you it was green!” Somebody please tell the global warming alarmists to hole up in a room somewhere, debate each other about whether global warming causes more frequent or less frequent severe cold spells, and then let us know when they have a consistent answer. In the meantime, the rest of us will wait up for Sasquatch, the Abominable Snowman, and the global warming-induced UFO invasion http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/08/embarrassed-global-warming-alarmists-sink-to-comedic-lows-with-polar-vortex-excuse/

To: Brumar89 who wrote (766189)	1/27/2014 3:29:14 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572417

Cause the state would have to pay for it in the future. Not expanding Medicaid could cost Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s state $9 billion in 2022. (Richard Shiro/AP) When the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the federal government could not compel states to expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act, it gave Republican opponents of the measure the opportunity to decline to participate in one of the law’s central tenets. But a new study estimates the decision not to participate will cost those states billions of dollars over the next decade — costs that will be passed on to taxpayers. The Affordable Care Act requires the federal government to pay 100 percent of the costs of expanding Medicaid for three years. After that period, the law mandates the federal government pay 90 percent of the costs of expansion. The 10 percent investment that would be left to the states, the study’s authors conclude, would be justified by the huge investments from the federal government. “States that choose to participate in the Medicaid expansion will gain considerable new federal funds,” the study’s authors write. “States often seek to increase their share of federal funds, lobbying for military bases, procurement contracts, and highway funds. Federal funding provides direct benefits and bolsters local economies.” Conversely, states that refuse Medicaid expansion will continue to be on the hook for billions in uncompensated care costs – as when uninsured residents visit the emergency room. By refusing to expand Medicaid, Texas will forgo $9.2 billion in federal funding in 2022, the authors said. Florida, another state that has said it won’t expand Medicaid, stands to lose more than $5 billion. Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia will all forgo more than $2 billion in federal funding, while Louisiana, Oklahoma and Wisconsin will miss out on more than $1 billion. Both Tennessee and Indiana, two states that have yet to formally decide whether to expand the program, face losing more than $2 billion in federal funding if they decide against expansion. The study, conducted for the pro-health-care reform Commonwealth Fund, was authored by Sherry Glied, dean of the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University and a top official in the Health and Human Services Department until 2012, and Stephanie Ma, a researcher at the Wagner School. Taxpayers in states that don’t expand their Medicaid programs will still be on the hook for federal taxes aimed at covering costs in other states, without benefiting on their own, the authors conclude. And no state that rejects Medicaid expansion will actually save money, the report finds. Medicaid expansion will constitute an increasing share of federal funds allocated to the states in coming years. On average, the amount of new federal funds flowing to states that expand Medicaid will be more than twice as large as the amount of federal highway dollars by 2022. If every state expanded Medicaid, the new program would cover up to 21 million Americans who make less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. In most cases, the new investment states will have to cover amounts to far less than the budgets those states use to attract private business investments. By 2022, Kentucky, for example, will spend $301 million to cover additional low-income residents; at the same time, the state will spend $1.7 billion in incentives and advertising to attract new businesses. Read the study here.