There are two points relative to AGW. First, the main reason I don't believe that AGW is a problem worth bothering with is because everyone I know who claims it is a problem does not live as if they believe that it is a problem. Second, everyone I know who claims that AGW is a problem that must be solved with greater government intrusion into my life, is either someone who has no authoritative basis to know that, or someone who benefits from the government having control over more resources.
I am saying that the majority of those claiming that "the science is settled" on global warming have previously made other arguments for the policy changes they are now recommending to combat AGW.
OK, perhaps it has never occurred to you that the scientific consensus believes that a certain problem requires a particular policy agenda because the scientists who are forming the consensus were looking for a "problem" which required that particular policy agenda. That is the results were determined before they started looking at the data. They then went looking for data which supported the conclusion they wished to reach. When people who have been promoting a particular policy agenda discover a problem to which the only solution is the policy agenda they were pushing before they "discovered" the problem. one should suspect that perhaps they only looked at data which supported the conclusion they wished to reach.
That is because the scientists claiming that AGW is proven clearly have a bias in favor of increasing government control over the economy. That means I question the science behind their claims that they have proven AGW, which they further claim requires increased government intervention in the economy to prevent disaster. When someone starts with the assumption that greater government control over the economy is a good thing, I have learned to question anything they say whether they first concluded that there was a problem that required government control, or whether they went looking for a problem that they thought they could convince people required government control.
My argument is:
Premise: Scientific consensus is that a certain problem exists, which means that we must institute a particular policy agenda.
Premise: Most of those supporting the first premise have previously made other arguments that claim some other problem means that we must institute that same policy agenda.
Conclusion: Those who are claiming that the "science is settled" are more interested in interpreting the evidence in order to promote a particular policy agenda than they are in finding out what is really happening.
The biggest problem is that anybody who questions the need for government intervention in the economy is considered to be someone who "denies the science."
Perhaps not, but all of the solutions I have heard suggested for dealing with that problem have been to give the government greater control over the economy and reduce the freedom of people to make decisions for themselves.
If I'm doing the speed limit in the far left lane you have no right to bitch.
If you are not passing another vehicle, than you are breaking the law and are doing something that is not safe. If you are not passing another vehicle, get out of the passing lane.
What does Santorum have to do with "everyone else"? Santorum is a single individual. If the original poster wanted to say that all other Presidential candidates had released their tax returns, then he should have said that.
I am sorry if it read that way. It was supposed to indicate that both Obama's father and his grandfather were polygamists, not that Obama himself is a polygamist.
Of course, unlike Obama, neither Mitt Romney's father nor his grandfather were polygamists. Both were married to the same woman for their entire lives.
The problem is that there is a long gap between the advent of regulation of medicine and any significant improvement in medical care. Many of those doctors who bled their patient's to death were properly certified as being masters of medicine. The argument that medicine is so much better today than before it was regulated by a central authority is not a good argument because medicine was regulated for a long time before there were any significant improvements in medical practice.
I do not have a position on the issue of government licensing of doctors. I understand the argument of those who argue against it, but there are other professions where the justification for government regulation of who can practice the profession is much less supportable that medicine is not the place to start. We should start with those other professions and, if things work out as one would expect, move on to professions with better justifications for government regulation.
As to whether or not there would be a way to stop incompetent doctors from practicing if certification boards did not exist, most libertarians support the right of people to sue when someone else's negligence causes them harm. In addition, it is conceivable that there could be other, better, ways to stop incompetent doctors from practicing. However, as I said, medicine is not the place to start going to a more libertarian model of professional regulation.
Your original argument seemed to be that our only choices are complete centralized control of medicine or no regulation at all. Most people who argue for reduced centralization of control over things are not actually arguing for nor government regulation. They are arguing for moderate regulation rather than regulation that attempts to determine what course of action practitioners will take in every eventuality that might come up.
Sorry, but it was not regulation that made modern medicine better, it was increased knowledge. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but certification boards do not have a particularly good reputation for actually removing licenses from doctors who fail to demonstrate competency.
Except that homeopathic treatments have a large amount of anecdotal evidence talking about how well they work (most of it complete BS, but out there for people to find nevertheless). When a patient goes on line to find out more about the medical sounding name you are giving to sugar-pills this week, the only documentation they are likely to find is someone commenting a week ago that that is the medical sounding name they should give sugar pills next week.
Reducing the perception of pain often allows for the body to heal in cases where the reaction of the person to the ongoing pain continued to aggravate the original injury.
Actually, reducing pain is a significant factor in treating many injuries. There are numerous cases where the pain of an injury impairs the body's ability to heal that injury.
They may not need to, but they already do store a lot of that data. Do you really think that as they start to collect more data about where you are and where you go they are not going to store that data as well?
OK, sorry I missed your point. I happen to think that the problem with education is that people keep trying to reinvent the wheel. There is a tried and true method that works. Beat the information into their heads until they get it right. Those that refuse to learn and disrupt the education of others get dumped out to fend for themselves.
What I mean to say is that education should be funded, and at a much higher priority.
What does that mean? Currently we know that schools with higher rates of funding per student than schools with lower rates of funding per student do not have better educational outcomes. What would it look like if those schools that already have higher funding per student were to be funded at a higher priority? How would that higher priority effect student outcomes?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are a proponent of "two wrongs make a right"?
There are two points relative to AGW. First, the main reason I don't believe that AGW is a problem worth bothering with is because everyone I know who claims it is a problem does not live as if they believe that it is a problem. Second, everyone I know who claims that AGW is a problem that must be solved with greater government intrusion into my life, is either someone who has no authoritative basis to know that, or someone who benefits from the government having control over more resources.
I am saying that the majority of those claiming that "the science is settled" on global warming have previously made other arguments for the policy changes they are now recommending to combat AGW.
All of the states near me have laws which state that the left lane is for passing only (with certain special case exceptions).
OK, perhaps it has never occurred to you that the scientific consensus believes that a certain problem requires a particular policy agenda because the scientists who are forming the consensus were looking for a "problem" which required that particular policy agenda. That is the results were determined before they started looking at the data. They then went looking for data which supported the conclusion they wished to reach. When people who have been promoting a particular policy agenda discover a problem to which the only solution is the policy agenda they were pushing before they "discovered" the problem. one should suspect that perhaps they only looked at data which supported the conclusion they wished to reach.
That is because the scientists claiming that AGW is proven clearly have a bias in favor of increasing government control over the economy. That means I question the science behind their claims that they have proven AGW, which they further claim requires increased government intervention in the economy to prevent disaster. When someone starts with the assumption that greater government control over the economy is a good thing, I have learned to question anything they say whether they first concluded that there was a problem that required government control, or whether they went looking for a problem that they thought they could convince people required government control.
How many of "everyone else" has run for President? The answer is, very few.
It's a classic free-rider problem and requires government intervention
Which is where I disagree. I have not been convinced that it requires government intervention, which makes me a "denier".
My argument is:
Premise: Scientific consensus is that a certain problem exists, which means that we must institute a particular policy agenda.
Premise: Most of those supporting the first premise have previously made other arguments that claim some other problem means that we must institute that same policy agenda.
Conclusion: Those who are claiming that the "science is settled" are more interested in interpreting the evidence in order to promote a particular policy agenda than they are in finding out what is really happening.
The biggest problem is that anybody who questions the need for government intervention in the economy is considered to be someone who "denies the science."
Perhaps not, but all of the solutions I have heard suggested for dealing with that problem have been to give the government greater control over the economy and reduce the freedom of people to make decisions for themselves.
If I'm doing the speed limit in the far left lane you have no right to bitch.
If you are not passing another vehicle, than you are breaking the law and are doing something that is not safe. If you are not passing another vehicle, get out of the passing lane.
There is an amazing new thing out there called an online dictionary. Perhaps you might consider using one?
Really? He had to do a study to conclude that people who believe in the free market reject attempts to replace it with a state-run economy?
What does Santorum have to do with "everyone else"? Santorum is a single individual. If the original poster wanted to say that all other Presidential candidates had released their tax returns, then he should have said that.
I am sorry if it read that way. It was supposed to indicate that both Obama's father and his grandfather were polygamists, not that Obama himself is a polygamist.
Of course, unlike Obama, neither Mitt Romney's father nor his grandfather were polygamists. Both were married to the same woman for their entire lives.
Romney sold have just released his returns like everyone else.
Well, I don't know about you, but I have not released my tax returns.
The problem is that there is a long gap between the advent of regulation of medicine and any significant improvement in medical care. Many of those doctors who bled their patient's to death were properly certified as being masters of medicine. The argument that medicine is so much better today than before it was regulated by a central authority is not a good argument because medicine was regulated for a long time before there were any significant improvements in medical practice.
I do not have a position on the issue of government licensing of doctors. I understand the argument of those who argue against it, but there are other professions where the justification for government regulation of who can practice the profession is much less supportable that medicine is not the place to start. We should start with those other professions and, if things work out as one would expect, move on to professions with better justifications for government regulation.
As to whether or not there would be a way to stop incompetent doctors from practicing if certification boards did not exist, most libertarians support the right of people to sue when someone else's negligence causes them harm. In addition, it is conceivable that there could be other, better, ways to stop incompetent doctors from practicing. However, as I said, medicine is not the place to start going to a more libertarian model of professional regulation.
Your original argument seemed to be that our only choices are complete centralized control of medicine or no regulation at all. Most people who argue for reduced centralization of control over things are not actually arguing for nor government regulation. They are arguing for moderate regulation rather than regulation that attempts to determine what course of action practitioners will take in every eventuality that might come up.
Sorry, but it was not regulation that made modern medicine better, it was increased knowledge. I am not sure if you are aware of it, but certification boards do not have a particularly good reputation for actually removing licenses from doctors who fail to demonstrate competency.
Except that homeopathic treatments have a large amount of anecdotal evidence talking about how well they work (most of it complete BS, but out there for people to find nevertheless). When a patient goes on line to find out more about the medical sounding name you are giving to sugar-pills this week, the only documentation they are likely to find is someone commenting a week ago that that is the medical sounding name they should give sugar pills next week.
Reducing the perception of pain often allows for the body to heal in cases where the reaction of the person to the ongoing pain continued to aggravate the original injury.
Actually, reducing pain is a significant factor in treating many injuries. There are numerous cases where the pain of an injury impairs the body's ability to heal that injury.
They may not need to, but they already do store a lot of that data. Do you really think that as they start to collect more data about where you are and where you go they are not going to store that data as well?
OK, sorry I missed your point. I happen to think that the problem with education is that people keep trying to reinvent the wheel. There is a tried and true method that works. Beat the information into their heads until they get it right. Those that refuse to learn and disrupt the education of others get dumped out to fend for themselves.
What I mean to say is that education should be funded, and at a much higher priority.
What does that mean? Currently we know that schools with higher rates of funding per student than schools with lower rates of funding per student do not have better educational outcomes. What would it look like if those schools that already have higher funding per student were to be funded at a higher priority? How would that higher priority effect student outcomes?