Slashdot Mirror
Should Science Be King In Politics?
Layzej writes "According to former Republican representative Bob Inglis, being conservative means dealing in facts. He suggests that energy and climate policy warrants a conservative approach based on science and accountability, rather than a populist approach based on denial and wishful thinking. He also proposes an intriguing free market solution to our energy and climate challenges."
Yea, well I disagreed with 90% of what was in it. Why? Because it can't work.
The fools who wrote the bill didn't even realize what the fracking problems were and frankly couldn't have cared less. It was about control.
The problems with health care are:
1. The people who pay for it aren't the ones consuming it. Obamacare makes this problem worse, not better.
2. We call it insurance but it isn't like anything else we put that word on. Obamacare makes this problem worse, not better. If you can buy health 'insurance' after you get sick and can't even be forced to pay higher rates it isn't insurance. Imagine being able to buy auto insurance after you wreck your car. Or flood insurance when a hurricane is bearing down on your town. Doesn't work, can't work.
3. We refuse to come to terms with reality. Medical science can do all sorts of things. We can't afford to provide all of them to everyone. Not because we are heartless rethuglican bastards, because there isn't enough wealth to do it now and the scientists will invent a hundred new even more expensive things tomorrow. If we try we will simply impoverish overselves to the point we can no longer afford to invent new things or do anything of note... and still won't be able to give everyone access to every new treatment available. In other words we kill the goose. Obamacare makes this problem worse, not better.
And yes I have some notions how to actually fix it, but I'd rather move back ontopic. If some interesting replies pop up we can go back to HC.
Which brings us to the stupid in this article. The whole point of the climate debate is whether it is a great green swindle or not. Many of us who do understand the scientific method.. AND how communists/progressives/liberals work have come to the reasoned conclusion that there is more than enough evidence to hold off reordering our entire civilization and giving politically connected hacks like Al Gore trillions of dollars to redistribute. To date I haven't seen anything in the AGW faith that is falsifiable, thus it isn't science. I haven't seen any models make predictions strong enough for the modelers to stake their reputation on the predictions which then came true a decade out. And yes I goddamn well know the difference between weather and climate, but if you can't put down a marker on a decade climate prediction I don't want to even discuss your century ones since we all know none of the guys making them will be around to account for them.
When they use circular arguments (and even more important nobody calls them on it) like "All Climate Scientists agree that AGW is real... if Climate Scientist is defined as someone who believes in AGW." you can call me an ignorant savage all you like but I am suspicious. And yes, it is really that bad. If you want to be a climate scientist you need funding and there are basically two sources. Industry, which gets you bounced from the climate scientist racket for being a shill for industry or you go for government funding. And since the NSF is part of the consensus, good luck getting funding if you EVER submit a proposal that isn't politically correct.
Democrat delenda est