The fact that most of the climate change of the last century is anthropogenic does not mean that there isn't natural climate change over different time intervals.
That's not a fact, that's an assertion.
Show me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes natural climate change at any rate over 50%.
If "for profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare, should we force doctors and nurses to work for just room and board?
Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare. It means people dying on waiting lists, and governments faking the documentation to avoid the embarrassment.
Sierra Club. League of Conservation Voters. World Wildlife Fund.
If you stacked up all the liberal money thrown at AGW in one pile, and all the conservative money thrown against AGW in another pile, the liberals would be on top by a huge amount.
You want to talk science? State a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Want to be a Democrat sheeple? Just listen to Al Gore, or any of his fellow hollywood elite.
I had a very similar experience - the more you applied any sort of rational skepticism, the more defensive the proponents of AGW got. It became a team sport, rather than a scientific inquiry.
The truth is, humans have a non-zero effect on our environment.
The truth is, this effect is almost surely completely unpredictable, and quite likely insignificant.
When expressing rational doubt is greeted with censure, and demands to "step in line", you've stopped doing science, and started preaching yet another religion.
There is excellent and comprehensive evidence that routine and chronic care reduces overall costs by cutting the frequency of acute exacerbations.
No. You're mistaking the idea that *some* routine and chronic care reduces overall costs, means that *all* routine and chronic care reduces overall costs.
Frankly, for those things that do reduce overall costs, the consumer should be willing to pay out of pocket, given the financial payback.
Part of the problem, of course, is that common wisdom on very basic things, like diet and exercise, are completely contrary to good practice - the past 40 years of "low-fat" diet and exercise advice are not only ineffective, but dangerous. Type 2 diabetes is actually a preventable and reversible condition, but our advice has actually *caused* it.
Sorry to hear about your heart attack - but if it is the case that the $70k you didn't have to pay wasn't funded by your previous premium payments (minus overhead), it does mean that other *people* (not the insurance company, it gets to keep its overhead no matter what) ended up funding the difference.
As for routine and chronic care, it's often the most expensive part of health care - the various drugs, tests, and heavy attention given to say, people on dialysis, ends up being a huge cost driver compared to heart attacks, not only because of frequency of condition, but because of frequency of treatment. Putting a stent in happens once. A weekly dialysis is massively more often.
Normal, routine wear of tires isn't covered, unlike routine health care that should be FFS instead. (although someone did mention "warranty" plans that are scams to charge you than what routine care would cost - the point still stands, though, since those scams are by definition expensive and inefficient)
No, if you make routine and chronic care FFS, then you encourage people to be price sensitive and help drive costs down. A vast majority of "preventive treatments" actually do nothing to reduce expenses in the future.
We've setup a system where there is such a huge gap between the consumer and the actual payer, that no rational decisions can be made. When things are "free", there's no incentive to be careful with $$, or to be more efficient with care.
Of course you're not playing a game - you're simply hiding behind a Duane Gish demand on some hypothetical analysis, imagining that anyone actually *cares* what you want:)
Precious!
Well, see how well that works for you:) At the end of the day, you've failed to show a falsifiable version of AGW, and failed to accept one that was shown to you:)
Of course this isn't a discussion or debate - apparently we're just typing to ourselves:)
But hey, if you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, be my guest:) I was almost convinced that you could come up with a formulation of AGW that was indeed, falsifiable, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it:)
1) I'm not asking for an analysis, I'm asking for an agreement on a basic principle; 2) You're acting like Duane Gish in refusing to talk (and win!) about the point on the principle of falsifiability; 3) I'm offering you a valid refutation of my lack of falsifiability statement, with the simple caveat that the specific contribution needs to be specified, and that this contribution amount is testable by signals analysis.
What part of this aren't you understanding?
Do you believe that an assertion of AGW without a quantifier is falsifiable somehow, so explicit quantification isn't required?
Do you believe that human contribution to AGW is immune to any constraint through signals analysis on global CO2 levels?
Fair enough - a "warranty" that is effectively a cost-ineffective alternative to actually paying for service does seem equivalent to how cost-ineffective health insurance is.
Gish gallop? You're offered a *win* on the merits, with the only condition that a specific assertion of human contribution needs to be specified that is testable by signals analysis...and you want some sort of analysis instead?
What's your goal here, to show that there is a version of AGW that is falsifiable, or to Gish Gallop around whether or not non linear systems can buffer high frequency inputs to something negligible? You want to talk about high and low pass filters?
At a certain point, you've got to ration care, and weigh the chronic care costs versus the opportunity costs you're incurring. Frankly, we as a society cannot afford to pay for chronic care of unlimited cost.
The problem here is that there is no upper limit on the money we can spend on chronic condition care - if we want to improve the cost structure, we need market forces, not wealth redistribution. Setup the wrong incentives and you'll get the wrong outcome.
Then don't use single payer. Eliminate the insurance company overhead, and simply run fee for service for chronic and routine care. Save the insurance company for catastrophic and acute care, and we're moving in the right direction.
Adverse selection is reduced if you limit health insurance to catastrophic care, rather than chronic or routine care. Use a fee for service model for chronic and routine care, and actuaries will have an easier time dealing with catastrophic rates.
Since insurance is about gambling at its core, it's difficult to give everyone a fair shake unless they have similar risk profiles. Limit risks to catastrophic and acute care, and things tend to smooth out insofar as risk factor.
At the end of the day, though, regardless of how you approach it, I think people need to realize that we cannot afford everything we want. At a certain point, you need to ration care, and you either do that through insurance rates, through government panels, or through inadvertent waiting lists at the VA. A lot of the talk around the issue seems to avoid that sticky bit.
You've never actually done any medical finances, have you:)
The loopholes in the definition of medical loss ratio are *astounding*, and gamed by insurance companies. Remember, these guys *wrote* the Obamacare text.
That being said, even if you accept 85% as accurate, wouldn't we want 100%?
Refuted my point that we might be able to agree on the falsifiability question? You haven't even responded!
The genesis of our disagreement was about falsifiability.
Your assertion that AGW is falsifiable is fulfilled if we can agree that a specific assertion must be made (i.e., 5%, 1%, etc), and that this assertion can be tested through signals analysis on human emissions vs. global co2 levels.
You can win the point here, with some fairly minor conditions attached...are you so intent on defending AAGW (ambiguous anthropogenic global warming), that you won't accept a win on AGW?
Slashdot Mirror
What a slap in the face to Mann :)
With damages like those, it's almost *begging* for more lawsuits of the same type :)
More blind assertions :)
Why are you so enamored of your belief system that you cannot defend it from doubt?
That's not a fact, that's an assertion.
Show me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes natural climate change at any rate over 50%.
Effect is unpredictable -> we don't know if it goes positive or negative.
Effect is insignificant -> we are rather sure that it does not go greatly positive or greatly negative.
Both can be true.
If "for profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare, should we force doctors and nurses to work for just room and board?
Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare. It means people dying on waiting lists, and governments faking the documentation to avoid the embarrassment.
Deny natural climate change all you want - it'll keep happening long after you're done arguing, the way it has every moment before :)
Sierra Club. League of Conservation Voters. World Wildlife Fund.
If you stacked up all the liberal money thrown at AGW in one pile, and all the conservative money thrown against AGW in another pile, the liberals would be on top by a huge amount.
You want to talk science? State a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Want to be a Democrat sheeple? Just listen to Al Gore, or any of his fellow hollywood elite.
I had a very similar experience - the more you applied any sort of rational skepticism, the more defensive the proponents of AGW got. It became a team sport, rather than a scientific inquiry.
The truth is, humans have a non-zero effect on our environment.
The truth is, this effect is almost surely completely unpredictable, and quite likely insignificant.
When expressing rational doubt is greeted with censure, and demands to "step in line", you've stopped doing science, and started preaching yet another religion.
We could make clear that you can believe in natural climate change and still be a liberal Democrat.
No. You're mistaking the idea that *some* routine and chronic care reduces overall costs, means that *all* routine and chronic care reduces overall costs.
Frankly, for those things that do reduce overall costs, the consumer should be willing to pay out of pocket, given the financial payback.
Part of the problem, of course, is that common wisdom on very basic things, like diet and exercise, are completely contrary to good practice - the past 40 years of "low-fat" diet and exercise advice are not only ineffective, but dangerous. Type 2 diabetes is actually a preventable and reversible condition, but our advice has actually *caused* it.
Sorry to hear about your heart attack - but if it is the case that the $70k you didn't have to pay wasn't funded by your previous premium payments (minus overhead), it does mean that other *people* (not the insurance company, it gets to keep its overhead no matter what) ended up funding the difference.
As for routine and chronic care, it's often the most expensive part of health care - the various drugs, tests, and heavy attention given to say, people on dialysis, ends up being a huge cost driver compared to heart attacks, not only because of frequency of condition, but because of frequency of treatment. Putting a stent in happens once. A weekly dialysis is massively more often.
Road hazards are accidents.
Normal, routine wear of tires isn't covered, unlike routine health care that should be FFS instead. (although someone did mention "warranty" plans that are scams to charge you than what routine care would cost - the point still stands, though, since those scams are by definition expensive and inefficient)
No, if you make routine and chronic care FFS, then you encourage people to be price sensitive and help drive costs down. A vast majority of "preventive treatments" actually do nothing to reduce expenses in the future.
We've setup a system where there is such a huge gap between the consumer and the actual payer, that no rational decisions can be made. When things are "free", there's no incentive to be careful with $$, or to be more efficient with care.
Yes, that's correct, I'm not doing what you asked for :)
And yes, that's correct, you've failed to show a falsifiable version of AGW, or accept one that was shown to you as a crib note :)
Of course you're not playing a game - you're simply hiding behind a Duane Gish demand on some hypothetical analysis, imagining that anyone actually *cares* what you want :)
Precious!
Well, see how well that works for you :) At the end of the day, you've failed to show a falsifiable version of AGW, and failed to accept one that was shown to you :)
Of course this isn't a discussion or debate - apparently we're just typing to ourselves :)
But hey, if you want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, be my guest :) I was almost convinced that you could come up with a formulation of AGW that was indeed, falsifiable, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it :)
Own goal again!
1) I'm not asking for an analysis, I'm asking for an agreement on a basic principle;
2) You're acting like Duane Gish in refusing to talk (and win!) about the point on the principle of falsifiability;
3) I'm offering you a valid refutation of my lack of falsifiability statement, with the simple caveat that the specific contribution needs to be specified, and that this contribution amount is testable by signals analysis.
What part of this aren't you understanding?
Do you believe that an assertion of AGW without a quantifier is falsifiable somehow, so explicit quantification isn't required?
Do you believe that human contribution to AGW is immune to any constraint through signals analysis on global CO2 levels?
Fair enough - a "warranty" that is effectively a cost-ineffective alternative to actually paying for service does seem equivalent to how cost-ineffective health insurance is.
I also believe you're 100% right on price publishing - singapore does this particularly well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Gish gallop? You're offered a *win* on the merits, with the only condition that a specific assertion of human contribution needs to be specified that is testable by signals analysis...and you want some sort of analysis instead?
What's your goal here, to show that there is a version of AGW that is falsifiable, or to Gish Gallop around whether or not non linear systems can buffer high frequency inputs to something negligible? You want to talk about high and low pass filters?
At a certain point, you've got to ration care, and weigh the chronic care costs versus the opportunity costs you're incurring. Frankly, we as a society cannot afford to pay for chronic care of unlimited cost.
The problem here is that there is no upper limit on the money we can spend on chronic condition care - if we want to improve the cost structure, we need market forces, not wealth redistribution. Setup the wrong incentives and you'll get the wrong outcome.
Then don't use single payer. Eliminate the insurance company overhead, and simply run fee for service for chronic and routine care. Save the insurance company for catastrophic and acute care, and we're moving in the right direction.
Adverse selection is reduced if you limit health insurance to catastrophic care, rather than chronic or routine care. Use a fee for service model for chronic and routine care, and actuaries will have an easier time dealing with catastrophic rates.
Since insurance is about gambling at its core, it's difficult to give everyone a fair shake unless they have similar risk profiles. Limit risks to catastrophic and acute care, and things tend to smooth out insofar as risk factor.
At the end of the day, though, regardless of how you approach it, I think people need to realize that we cannot afford everything we want. At a certain point, you need to ration care, and you either do that through insurance rates, through government panels, or through inadvertent waiting lists at the VA. A lot of the talk around the issue seems to avoid that sticky bit.
You've never actually done any medical finances, have you :)
The loopholes in the definition of medical loss ratio are *astounding*, and gamed by insurance companies. Remember, these guys *wrote* the Obamacare text.
That being said, even if you accept 85% as accurate, wouldn't we want 100%?
Refuted my point that we might be able to agree on the falsifiability question? You haven't even responded!
The genesis of our disagreement was about falsifiability.
Your assertion that AGW is falsifiable is fulfilled if we can agree that a specific assertion must be made (i.e., 5%, 1%, etc), and that this assertion can be tested through signals analysis on human emissions vs. global co2 levels.
You can win the point here, with some fairly minor conditions attached...are you so intent on defending AAGW (ambiguous anthropogenic global warming), that you won't accept a win on AGW?
I'm comparing health *INSURANCE* to an xbox. Health *CARE* isn't the same thing as health *INSURANCE*.