NorthSideSox72

I'll be in the Phoenix area, Feb 10-14. Its before P&C report, but I'm pretty sure that some early arrivers, rehabbers, etc., will be there. Anyone ever hit Glendale and see things that early, before the official reporting date hits? Anything to see?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:40 AM) Seriously? A nuclear meltdown is about as devastating as humans can get. The fact you're ignoring that is borderline ignorant. So I'm leaving this be, since you've made it obvious there is no point in having this discussion with you. Well, wait - see my post about cows versus nukes. Its not as simple as saying a nuclear event is the worst that can be done. Its probably the worst we can do (especially if you add the cobalt jackets - see Novaya Zemlya) for immediate impact, but some ongoing things are more devastating over time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) Probably sold a plan by an investment firm with high management fees, would be my guess. A possibility, but still... QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) For all we know, they're on the level...but I don't like it because its very non-standard. I've never heard of a 401k that doesn't give the end user a choice of a few different funds/indexes, in which they can choose to be risky or very conservative. I haven't heard of it either. And even if SS is right in his hypothesis, those investment management firms will usually work WITH the clients in that case to make their decisions, thus the higher fees.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) While I agree our impact is of some cause, of that there is no doubt, I think we love to pat ourselves on the back as to how much cause that is, not to even mention "lasting" cause. Look at Chernobyl. Just a few decades ago it went through a nuclear f***ing meltdown and it's already WELL into natural recovery with plant life, etc. In the grand scheme of things, the few decades that passed are mere milliseconds to the Earth, and it didn't even blink at a nuclear disaster. As a matter of fact, it laughed...and I heard it laugh, while saying..."Wow...these arrogant pieces of garbage REALLY think they're powerful, don't they?" We're not. We just wish we were. Interesting side note on this. Back in the 80's, some scientists were looking at the land at and around the Trinity Site (site of the first atomic bomb test). That area has been unoccupied and for the most part, left alone, for the 40 years since the bomb. They found that the overall health of the plant and animal life there was in better shape than the land nearby, which had cattle running on it in those 40 years. Not really making a point with this, other than, nature is complex.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) What do you mean you've never heard of that? It's almost exactly what Enron/Worldcom did, only they invested all the 401k money into their own stocks to pump up it's price. I don't like this idea at all. Give us your money and trust us? How about f*** you. You will tell me exactly what you're investing in or you won't be doing it with my money. Enron did something very different. They had a traditional 401k with choices, but they required employees to sit down with a rep to discuss their "options". They were then encouraged to buy a whole bunch of Enron stock with their 401k's, which is just stupid and incredibly inappropriate. In this case, he is saying he doesn't get any choice at all. And I agree, I wouldn't like it either, that seems very sketchy to me. Why would a company even want to control that? Seems fishy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) Sort of. There were parts like that, and I think the applause was appropriate. But it also tended to be like a state of the union address where random applause broke out where it wasn't needed and/or simply inappropriate. I saw only highlights, but I have to agree that some parts of it seemed a little uncomfortably cheer-like. And I don't even mean Obama's speech - it was the crowd. Just seemed a little strange.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 07:47 AM) He doesn't belong there. Nor does that nickname.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:38 AM) NSS, this is that appeal to moderation I was referring to. The correct answer doesn't necessarily lay between "100% human or 0% human". We have every reason to believe, within the confidence intervals, that it really is 100% human or damn close to it. Well this is different. First of all, I think the answer definitely HAS to lie larger than 0%, and smaller than 100%. Second, this is a scientific situation, not a political argument (in terms of what is actually happening, not the policy decisions about it).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:40 AM) Frighteningly, yes. (They have a habit of dying in droughts, for example. They're a species that seems to adapt particularly slowly to changing precipitation conditions. You can treat some of their deaths as large scale climate experiments. Efforts to introduce them in African areas a few decades ago failed when the drought hit the Sahel region in the early 1980's.) Which gives me confidence that, probably, we have looked at most of the things that have at least some effect. That's all I'm saying - we can't know all, we can't know 100%, and I am highly skeptical of anyone who says we can. To be clear, I'm generally on your side here - we are causing some bulk of the problem, and we can absolutely do many things to make it better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:31 AM) This is why I'm saying they're hunting for a mechanism though. The atmosphere isn't some region which doesn't follow the rules of physics and chemistry. You really can figure out most of the climate change math with a few hours of work, starting from scratch. It falls out of the basic chemistry and physics rules which were ironed out in the early half of the 20th century...and those rules do a remarkably good job of making predictions about the geologic record as well. If there is a mechanism out there which fits with the laws of physics that explains climate variability other than CO2, it's had enormous sums of money thrown at it. At this point, postulating some unknown mechanism is quite close to postulating new physics. We're throwing tens of millions of dollars right now at determining how interstellar neutrinos interact with clouds, just in case that happens to play a role. How about dung beetles? Have you checked them yet?

Own: 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid. Been a great car for the family, and we paid off the difference in hybrid cost within a year, after which we've saved really good money on gas. Probably will soon buy: Something plug-in hybrid, like a Volt or the FEH plug-in. Maybe in a year or two. Dream car that I will never actually buy and can't afford it anyway: Porsche 959

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) I'd say that the non-human-caused ones have been researched quite thoroughly as well. Perhaps better than the human-caused ones...there's more money out there to research why it's not human-caused. That research is done quite thoroughly as well. This is the arrogance, right here. No, they haven't been. SOME of them have been researched quite thoroughly, I am sure. You cannot possibly tell me that there is prolific research out there on every other possible natural factor - only the ones people have thought about. Now I will give you that, in all likelihood, the remaining unknowns out there are small enough factors that they are probably not major players in the equations for global climate. Probably. But you do not know that. You can't possibly know that with full certainty.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) If you're making under about $35 k per year, you're going to pay more in taxes this year than last, and the lower the number, the more your taxes will go up. Really? That's odd, I thought the lowest brackets remained the same. I must have misunderstood. QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:21 AM) I don't know. I'll have to ask. It's a little hard to explain but I work as a contract programmer. The company that actually pays me is run by a bunch of accountants. The guy that I actually deal with from the company is not one so some information may be getting lost in translation. I thought they should have stayed the same too. I'm only going by what the online calculator said. I haven't gotten an actual paycheck yet. Not til next week. On the taxes I really don't know... but my one piece of advice for you on both the taxes and the 401k, is to go get a lot more information before making decisions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) What I'm stressing though is that there is zero reason to automatically assume that they aren't entirely human caused. Entirely human caused is fully reasonable within the current data, just as 50% human caused is. The difference in my mind is that I have a set of mechanisms by which I can explain fully human caused...and every one who proposes that the changes happening globally right now are not human caused is out there struggling for a mechanism. I automatically assume nothing, as you will see in my statements. The non-human factors may be really, really small - you and I don't know. Of course you can explain fully human-caused because its studied factors with good data. The reason I said it was arrogance to say they are 98%+ sure its 100% human-caused is not what they know, its what they can't possibly know but act like they do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:16 AM) The arrogance to me is not in believing that humans are powerful enough to shape their environment. Humans have been doing that for hundreds of thousands of years, on massive scales (the area where you're currently sitting used to be a gigantic swamp, for example. For another, you don't have a sabre-toothed cat chasing you around). If there is arrogance...I think you can find it in the assumption that everything will always come out ok...that we're always going to wind up on the happy side of the margin of error. No good scientist is going to say that they can prove to 98% certainty that all of the changes currently happening in the environment are because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But no good scientist should say that they can prove that only 50% of it is, either, and if a margin of error is given on the numbers...you can't automatically assume that reality is on the safe side. Who you are talking about though, is not me, or iamshack, or Y2HH, all of whom agree we have an effect. You are really targeting the head-in-the-sand crowd, the hyper-conservatives who think global warming is some giant conspiracy, and they are so dolt-like they will use snow in DC to try to prove their point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:11 AM) Really, no, we're not. The Earth's atmosphere and planetary energy budgets are very finely tuned nobs, and the amount of deposited carbon in the earth is very large compared to the size of those nobs. I think this is the best way I can say it. The difference in atmospheric CO2 between an ice-age state and an interglacial state is the difference between 200 and 275 ppm CO2. We've got more than a few proxies that say that, including ice cores from both ice caps. 75 ppm CO2. The amount of CO2 we've released in the atmosphere has been enough to go from 280 to 390. We've already released enough CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of a century to change the atmosphere by more than it changed when the last ice age ended. And right now, that number is going up by 2.5 ppm per year. It will take only a couple decades for humankind to double atmospheric CO2. CO2 in the atmosphere is an incredibly powerful lever. I have little doubt that CO2 levels changing like that are anthropogenic, and I have little doubt that will have some negative effect. All the more reason to address the causes. But what others are saying is, that is NOT the same as saying all the recent change in temperature, precipitation and other factors HAVE to be human-caused.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) I was told stocks and bonds. I guess I could find out exact details but I can't change it. LOL, and did you tell them, "duh!"? Did they say stock and bond FUNDS, or stocks and bonds DIRECTLY? I am starting to think you mght work for some sort of financial firm, that either provides investments already to the public or has weird restrictions on these things for employees. QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) On a semi-related note: Does anyone know how they figure out how much to take out of your check for federal taxes? I found a payroll calculator online that was very accurate for me last year when trying to estimate out my checks. When I put in the numbers for 2011 it says that I should be getting about $30 more this year. They are taking more out in federal taxes but less for social security. When I checked my wife's check it says she'll actually be getting $7 less. Again they are taking less out of SS but a lot more out of federal taxes. Federal income taxes should stay materially the same in 2011 for nearly everyone. But, maybe your income went up? Or maybe the company realized they were under-withholding and bumped it up for 2011?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:05 AM) I get lost in all your brilliance here, Balta, and I mean that sincerely, but I think I understand what you are saying enough to be surprised that you feel this way. I agree with Y2H...it seems like we are flattering ourselves quite a bit here... I have a hard time with people on either extreme on this. On the one hand, I think you'd have to be blind or in denial to not look around and realize that humanity has a significant impact on the environment. That combined with the great, great, great majority of science agreeing that there is at least some anthropogenic component, makes it quite clear to me. On the other hand, how anyone can point to a system so incredibly complex as climate and the atmosphere and say with 100% certainty (or even 98% certainty) that the changes can only be human-caused, seems incredibly arrogant and narrow-minded. There are just so many variables at play, and we can't possibly understand all of it at the same time to make a truly complete judgment. That all said, we can only control our part, and I find it obvious that we should work on that part, to help protect ourselves in the ways we can.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:00 AM) No misunderstanding. I literally have no control over how my money gets invested. I just give it to them and they invest it how they like. Then I get it back when I retire or leave the company (depending on my vesting status of course). That's why I'm hesitant about it. I hate to lose the 3% match though. You're kidding. I've never heard of that. I mean, I've heard of stock purchase plans (which obviously have only one choice), and partnership shares in a single entity... but a 401k where you can't decide which funds to buy into? Did they at least tell you what they plan to put the money in?

Kind of related, and I think I like this idea... Senator Mark Udall (the Colorado Udall) suggests that for the SOTU address, instead of the parties sitting divided by party, they sit mixed together (possibly by state, all parties). I like - not only sends a good message and forces some better collegiality, but might also help reduce the stupid orchestrated crap.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 10:26 PM) Iowa State was so close. Good things are on their way. For a team that was picked by many to be the absolute worst in the B12, I am pretty happy with what the Clones are doing. Giving KU a run for their money is a nice step, and they were one last mircosecond free throw away on the road at Nebraska. Hoiberg doing things with this team that people didn't think possible when the season opened. Still, they need 6 or 7 wins in the conference to go to the NIT, and that would be a nice step for them. NCAA still a long shot at best.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 06:24 PM) I think everyone knows this is all about saving ourselves. But I don't believe our "actions" are creating the devastating consequences many of you seem too. I DO think our contribution to climate change is having an effect/has had an effect, however, it's of my opinion that said effect is minimal at best, and it's our ego's that require and create the belief we are doing much more damage than we actually are. Also, I think the steps we've taken (or have begun to take), albeit baby steps, are steps in the right direction to undo what little damage we've done. I also understand that the reality of modern life is that some destruction will be left in our wake, but again, aside from absolute nuclear devastation, I don't think what we've done thus far is the major factor for "modern climate change", I think most of it's natural, has happened before, and will happen again. That being said, if we can minimize our footprint, I'm all for it...unless it makes living modern life unbearable...I'm not interested in living as they did in the early 1900's just to be green. I want my electricity, and I want it now...and I want as much of it as I want. I agree with your general points here - that climate change is surely partly anthropogenic, but that we don't know how much... that its likely not 100%... and that we are doing things to move in the right direction. But really, no one is suggesting living in the early 20th century, and I'd contend that the scientific evidence says we're a significant part of the change in climate. And as for how much damage is in our wake, its not really about damage - its about effect. Look around you. Humans and their stuff are pretty much everywhere, and there is no way that doesn't have an effect - and thus countereffects from teh environment.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) 6 years to 100% vested. I assume its a cascading thing, right? Like 20% vested each year? Or is it zero vesting all the way to six years then 100% (which would surprise me)? Keep in mind that even if the match is a long way off from vesting, just the tax savings alone and the chance of some vesting amount is worth it. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 06:29 PM) I have a problem with this 401k plan he's talking about. What do you mean you have no control over it? What are they investing it in? This is important, just as important as how much they match and how long it takes to vest. It's not usual for modern 401k's to give the individual investors no control over what it's going into... I think that's a misunderstanding, I have never heard of anyone with a 401k that they couldn't control what they were investing in.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Weren't significant structural problems known before 2007-2008? Absolutely, and discussed significantly. The financial crisis worsened things, but Illinois government had spent about a decade (maybe a little less) pushing it far closer to the brink to begin with. The financial crisis simply took it from being a big and obvious risk, to a big active problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) Yeah but you could say (rightfully, I think) that the pensions needed to be addressed then to avoid such a massive problem now. Just a minor quibble. Sure, and they should have been. But the problem was much smaller then because they were funded at a good level, so the only issue was the general problem of the model.