Failure to provide a counter argument means you have no argument.
Your comment is null. It literally might as well have not happened.
Either provide a credible rebuttal or your entire presence in this thread is null. You are serving excursively to waste my time until that happens. Full stop.
Every post you make in this thread is being counted as of now. And when I feel enough is enough... I'm just going to assume you have nothing. Declare you fail by default and move on.
I had to look that one up. From what I can see, he was suing to get raw data disclosed so that Mann's methodology could be audited.
That you need to file a lawsuit to do that should actually give you some pause. That that information isn't already publicly available should give you pause. That Mann's work has been accepted by science in general without that information available for peer review should give you pause.
I am not saying I support anything that politician has done or said. I don't know a great deal about the man and I don't really care a great deal about him.
However, you referenced him and a lawsuit against penn state concerning climate change. I looked it up... and what he was asking for was a disclosure of information.
Name another field of science that would need to be threatened with a law suit to provide information that was fundemential to their core research?
Physics? Nope. Physicists are happy to give you all their data. Biology? Nope. Same. Geology? Nope. Same. Mathematics? Nope.... I don't think they really need evidence... its sort of just applied logic but... they're happy to give it all to you.
etc.
Name another field besides climate science where they don't want to disclose data. I actually know of at least one other field where that is actually common. But it suffers from a crippling amount of political control as well.
From what I can see, the common denominator in why a field gets cagey about disclosure... is politics OR corruption. I don't know of any other instance where scientists refuse to disclose information.
What could you buy before and what can you buy now?
Because I am not rich... before or after... and it is more expensive now then it was before. I mean... significantly.
Now do I think we should help people that have a hard time getting medical care afford said care? Yes. Is the best method to provide that care to just throw money into the air until it covers the earth like leaves after autumn? Obviously not.
Here someone is going to say "but single payer would be better!"... Maybe... but then like... anything would be better then this stupid law. the law is dumb. What we had before for all its flaws was better. My care was cheaper. I am not in some amazing stratospheric yacht class of people that sips expensive brandies while I talk about the little people. This law made my care more expensive. Full stop.
Now here is where someone says "Okay, what is your solution because we need a better policy!". Okay, look at the price of college education over time. Graph it against the inflation rate. Notice something? Now do the same thing with the cost of housing prior to the crash. Notice something? What is happening is cost inflation due to government subsidization.
Basically what you are looking at in many markets is the effect that unlimited subsidization has on free market systems when they are purely demand side. That is, if you just give everyone money that can only be spent on a given product or service... people buy that product or service in greater volumes. That then not only consumes the supply of those products or services but also increases what people ultimately can pay for them because not only do they have their own personal resources to draw upon but also this big government check. And so naturally, even if the supply is increased, because people have more money to spend... the costs go up. And the more subsidization you throw into the market the more the prices go up. And the faster you do it, the faster the prices go up. If your level of subsidization is percentage based and not even a flat amount then your subsidization rate can feed back into the supply/demand price loop in real time. Which can mean rapid uncontrolled price inflation.
We've seen this before. It has happened many times because this is a lesson government and certain ideologues have a very hard time dealing with because it contradicts some political positions that are simply verifiability wrong.
Where am I going with this? Well, medical costs have been going through the same cost inflation for YEARS. In fact, the very justification for obamacare was that cost inflation. And the cost inflation was caused in large part by government subsidization of healthcare. Look at the price of healthcare prior to the subsidization for something like mending a broken arm. Something that hasn't changed remarkably in a generation. And you'll see the costs were a great deal lower after factoring for inflation.
So what are my solutions to this problem? Well, rather then give people money so they can pay for increasingly expensive medical care, why not try to make medical care cheaper for EVERYONE. Not by giving people money but effecting the market so that prices go down.
There are a lot of ways to do this sort of thing. There is a hospital in Texas for example that has a completely different administrative structure. They basically did away with the three upper floors of most hospitals that are full of people that just do paper work. And instead they give shift nurses administrative control over their domain. That in and of itself lowers the cost hugely.
The price of that is that the hospital outright refuses to deal with complicated paperwork from the insurance companies. They offer various ways of managing that. You can for example deal with the paper work yourself and it is your responsibility to see that the hospital gets paid or that you get reimbursed after paying the hospital out of pocket. They also have sort of a medical plan that covers JUST that hospital.
Whatever, pal. You're still not refuting anything I've said or engaging with me in an intellectual fashion.
You are aware of the monty python "argument clinic" sketch?
Contradiction is not an argument. You are not arguing with me simply by saying I am wrong. If that is as far as you go then you've failed in fact to substantively refute me.
As to whether or not you're following me around... hundreds if not thousands of people comment on most of the issues where you respond specifically to me. Given slashdot's policy only allowing so many comments a day and requiring a certain amount of time between comments... you are going out of your way to comment to ME. You could very easily comment on any of a dozen other people that are likewise disagreeing with something you believe. I'm hardly the only one that has these opinions.
Yet you comment on me with a high degree of frequency. Have you noticed how often I seek you in any topic that I am likewise commenting in to comment on you? I believe I may have done that once... like... two years ago. And yet ever since I see you popping into my comments about once every other week... and no less then once a month. Which is about as often as the AGW issues pop up in slashdot.
In any case, I really bare you no ill will. I just wish our relationship were a more rewarding one. Foes and opponents after all can strengthen people. We might bring out hidden strengths in each other. A battle of wits might be educational or at least fun.
But I don't get that from you sadly. You just pop into my comment, say something snarky, and then piss off. It is sort of boring.
Let me assume for the sake of argument that this is my fault. What would I need to do without changing my stance on any issue to attract you into an actual discussion? What ground rules would you need established/accepted?
Is this too much to hope or is this to be the nature of our relationship going forward? I say something you disagree with... you show up and say something snarky... I respond with something dismissive... next issue... rinse/repeat?
As to when it became politicized... please attempt to correct my chronology.
I will then point out that the AGW movement didn't become much of a thing until after Al Gore started pushing it. Prior to that point, it was a very minor issue and as a result was subjected to much less political perversion.
By making the issue a white hot political talking point... it is a political issue. Completely. Nothing left. It is turtles all the fucking way down and the only way to get back to what it was is to extract the politics, remove the penalities for not holding to the orthadoxy, and simply letting the scientists get on with their jobs.
You won't permit that because you find the issue to be politically useful. It is just a weapon to you. And because that is all it is to you that is all it is when you use it. It ceases to have scientific meaning in that context.
To paraphrase, if you really love science... then let it be free. Trying to control it, dominate it, and tie it to your various political agendas which exist indifferent to science merely undermines the credibility of the science. And if the science doesn't have credibility it has NOTHING. You are robbing science of the one thing most dear to it for petty political advancement.
Nuclear is getting choked by the same people that hate the CO2. So... I'm increasingly for self generation as much as possible if only because it is harder for fucktards to control.
Anonymous coward issues baseless insult... oh god no... save me.
The main issue with the AC posts is that it is impossible to know if most of them are just the same sad individual. I mean, I get most of my abuse from ACs. And I have to wonder if they're all just some guy that loves me... that much.
It is kind of touching in a sad internet sort of way.
Anyway, as usual... back your shit up or it is a null comment.
Listen, we will get what we want right now by turning big monopoly ISPs into utilities.
However, we have to think strategically. If we only think tactically we will get out maneuvered.
Play chess for a moment. What happens when the big ISPs are utilities? Yes, they will be regulated more heavily but they will also have their protection from competition enshrined more deeply in law.
What is more, the federal government will gain increasing control over the internet. Consider the NSA for example. Do you for an instant think they won't exploit this situation? If the FCC starts dictating things to the ISPs how hard would it be for the NSA to go to the FCC and get them to put an NSA box at the ISP? Child's play.
And that is just the beginning.
The wild free days of the internet are over if we turn the ISPs into utilities. Will the ISPs fuck us on occasion? Yes. But I'll take that on an ongoing basis rather then give the feds total control. Because at least with the ISPs there is hope. With the feds it is gone. You'll start seeing regulations on free speech, requirements that people use real names on the internet, micromanaging of peer to peer content.
I mean seriously what do you think is going to happen once the feds get this power?
The solution has always been greater competition. it is the only way to eat our cake and have it too. With greater competition the ISPs can't fuck over their consumers without losing market share and they aren't being micromanaged by politicians.
Then do them in dead zones. There are a few regions of the ocean where there is almost no life at all. They're aquatic deserts. Do it there.
Alternatively, you could just have very small blooms but spread them out over the whole world.
Who says you need to have a giant bloom that spans 400 miles in every direction? Why not hundreds of thousands of blooms that are something a single person could start? We could give away little kits. Give them to fishing boats, cargo ships, cruise liners, private yachters or something. Dump this in the water at these coordinates.
Whatever... you don't like that geo engineering idea... fine. But if you're reflexively against all geo engineering options then we have a problem.
1. That is when the hysteria over the issue began. Absent Al Gore and the massive funding of AGW research that ultimately requires holding to a specific view point... I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Take the politics out of the issue and you're science will be more credible.
keep the politics in and everything you do has to be double checked to sort the bullshit from the science. Just what is.
We see this with other fields of science as well. Especially gender studies for example which often have very biased statistics.
For example, would you say that 1 in 5 women are raped in college? Obviously not. But if you define rape as having a regrettable sexual encounter then you get about 1 in 5 women. Which is how rape is defined in some statistics.
Now that is clearly political bullshit. What you need to understand is that many differient fields of science have been perverted by political agendas which corrupts findings. And so when you read over their results, you have to fact check them because they're prone to exaggerate, misrepresent, or otherwise mislead. What is more the peer review process in many different fields has been suborned by circles of like minded people that all review each other's papers and serve as gatekeepers for anyone else to get peer review. Which means the whole peer review process becomes an unreliable means of determining whether something is valid or not.
As to reading what you've written. I question whether you read anything I write actually. You're personally hostile against me which is really sort of amusing. You've noted perhaps that I don't follow you around on the board gainsaying you... do I? No. Because I don't care about you. You're just another person on the site with another opinion. And I hold no personal anomosity against you. But you follow me around like a hateful puppy and I have to wonder why when you clearly don't find me to be compelling.
Why read me? If I were you and felt the way you do... I'd just ignore you. And before you claim that you're confronting someone that is spreading misinformation or whatever clap trap you're cooking up, you're not confronting me. You're following me around and throwing baseless insults at me. You're the old beggar woman that follows someone around to throw rotten fruit at him. I mean... that isn't a rebuttal. It is just inconvenient and annoying.
If you actually want to engage with me, I'm willing to do it. I always have been. But throwing out some cheap insults and then running away which has been your pattern is not a threat to my argument or my opinions. If anything, you demean yourself in the process... not me.
You're so eager to gainsay me that you didn't bother to actually read or understand my point.
My point was not that you can't do anything or that you can't use science.
My point was that if you involve politics WITH the science WHILE the science is being collected that you INFLUENCE the scientific process. And when you do that, the science becomes BIASED to your POLITICAL objectives.
You control the funding. You control the peer review process. You control hiring. You control tenure. You appoint politicians often in intentional organizations to audit and edit scientific findings.
Etc.
And then you take the product of that process and call it science.
It isn't. We can't know what the science is at this point because you've fucked with the process so horribly. For all either of us know the actual results could be anything.
You do what you've done to ANY institution and it will tell you the moon is made of green cheese.
Now does that mean AGW isn't real and isn't a threat? Absolutely not. It could be every bit as bad as you claim. However, you don't know that and neither does anyone but a few scientists that have studied it deeply. But what they say can't be trusted because you have a knife to their throat.
Lets say some scientist came out and said there was no AGW and it the world was fine. What would you immediately say about that person? You'd say they were wrong, bought off, crazy, etc. Never mind you've never read their research and don't actually know why they said that. You would assume they were wrong out of hand. And you would immediately take steps to destroy their career, shut them out of the process, etc.
Scientists are not stupid. They know what you'll do. They've seen it happen. So IF/WHEN they found such evidence, what makes you think they'd sacrifice everything to tell you something that you wouldn't listen to in the first place?
Your fanaticism, bullying, and intolerance has rendered the issue non-credible because we can't know what is going on anymore. The politics have fucked the issue up beyond repair.
Either withdraw the politics from the issue or you don't have science. You have politics. And politics are evidence of nothing.
Am I? And who are you? Oh that's right, no one knows because you hide your name. You could be advocating child porn or something and we'd never know.
Are you really so stupid that you're going to attempt ad hominem while even hiding your fake name?
Do you think my mother named me Karmashock at birth?
It isn't my real name. Its a fake name. But even that is too much of a reveal for you. You have to hide behind the AC handle and then presume to judge me?
And worse, your stupid insults are baseless. You've provided no evidence to substantiate anything you've said. You just showed up with an AC handle and started throwing out dumb insults.
I am saying that you cannot involve yourself with the people collecting that information or making those theories.
You CAN use the information but ONLY if you didn't influence them or pervert outcomes.
If you stand over their shoulders, control their funding, bully those that don't say what you want out of the process, and set up international organizations to intentionally create global institutional group think... then you can't call the outcome science.
It is just politics then.
Garbage in Garbage out.
Politics in Politics out.
You want science? Leave the scientists alone. Let them do science. Stop fucking with their funding. Stop bullying people out of the process that don't say what you want them to say.
And THEN we probably will get science. And THEN you can use that that product to push whatever.
But if you don't do that, then you don't have science. You have politics. And politics are not science.
No you didn't. Roger Revelle largely proposed and started the theory in science. This is the same fellow that personally educated Al Gore about it at Harvard.
And guess what he was towards the end of his life? A skeptic.
Guess what he was called when he said that? Senile.
Which is basically what happens whenever anyone criticizes the POLITICAL movement.
It isn't scientific and hasn't been for decades. There is science done in it but all of it is through a political lens. All of which is very regrettable.
I am not saying that you should be anti AGW. I am saying that the science is being corrupted and can't be trusted until the politicians are removed from the issue. The grant process furthermore cannot require given scientific conclusions which has also been an established quality of this topic for many years now.
1. Of course it is corporate welfare. That is the point of a government backed monopoly. The corporation goes to the politician and says "hey, I have money and influence which I will give to you if in return you'll make it illegal for anyone to compete with me."
2. As to equality of outcome, the monopolies only bother with that crap when they want to trick idiot politicians or idiot voters. The reality is that the stuff they pay out to actual poor people tends to be a pittance of what they make by having a monopoly. The only people that actually do well by the bribery are the politicians perhaps. And that is also a pittance.
Take TWC and Comcast's low income internet service... know how you get it? Its buried in their websites. Pretty deep. Like... I bet you'd have a hard time finding it. And you need an internet connection to get that far. So how many poor people do you think sign up for the services at those rates? Pretty much none of them because they can't find the promotions and just as likely they don't know the subsidies exist.
Seriously, the monopolies are bad for everyone. They're even bad for the big ISPs in the long run because they get lazy, stagnate, and will probably go through a collapse at some point simply because their tech will be so laughably out of date.
1. It got political when the likes of Al Gore got involved which was pretty much at the start of it. So this notion that it only became political when there was push back fails... history?... That or time and space and thus physics.
2. This whining about money from the evil oil companies... do you know how much money the governments of the world spend pushing a pro AGW message? Does it even begin to compare to the evil oil company's PR budgets? It doesn't. You fail at math.
So anyway, pathetic defense of indefensible politicization of important scientific discussion is rejected for being ignorant.
The geoengineers have the problem of not being as useful to the politicians. Every time the geo engineering side is brought up, they get shouted down by the... I don't know what to call them... but you know who I mean... and they just get discredited despite offering some pretty easy ways to possibly fix everything.
Seeding the oceans with fertilizer to create massive algae blooms was one such idea. Another one was injecting moisture into the upper atmosphere to stimulate cloud production.
Here is one of the things i find so irritating about this debate. We're on the cusp of so many transformative technologies and I don't think this issue is moving as fast as some people seem to think it is moving. I think as impatient as we are with our technological development, I think we have more then enough time to come up with the miracle tech that will just fix it.
I mean, genetically engineered bio fuel producing algae... or some other plant that that does the same thing. Practical fusion. Self assembling solar panels.
I mean... things are happening. We that fact of the pause in the warming as well as how slowly it was warming before suggests to me that we have time. Maybe a couple generations even. And with that sort of time we can reinvent our entire industrial economy.
I don't think we should panic and I don't find the politicization and hostility to be useful or constructive for anyone but people that find angry mobs useful. And those people tend to be assholes... so fuck them.
... it is this belief that they can do these things without asking permission that is really troubling. The newspaper might have said yes if consulted. But the government didn't even ask. It did what it wanted to do and THAT is at the root of so many of these controversies.
... really needs. More politicization, more exclusion, less debate, more demonetization, more "if it 10 percent possible then we should spend a 1 trillion on it now!", etc.
Cue the hordes of people that will say I'm supporting deniers or other equally politically loaded terms that don't have anything to do with science.
Gentlemen. This is a controversial issue. It just is. And that isn't going to go away by demonizing the opposition. Just won't. That just gives those people ammunition to say that you're afraid of debate or the science because you're just devolving into ad hominem and various political games rather then staying laser focused on the science.
Right now, some fool is trying to pen a response that says "oh you're automatically invalid because you ascribe to this political faction or that one."... Well congrats. You've proved my fucking point, you complete fucking retard.
I want to take this issue away from the politicians and the rabid foaming at the mouth political activists and just hand this back to the scientists. And that includes removing the stigmas in government research grants from saying one thing or another about climate change. It is literally impossible to keep your credibility on this issue if you only permit certain conclusions.
Now to show I'm not just supporting one side, I've seen a lot of bullshit science on the skeptic/denier side as well. Just silly make believe shit.
Here is what is going to blow the mind of some poor son of a bitch... I am on neither of these teams. *BOOM* Some of them probably can't even believe that. It isn't possible for anyone to be anything but with them or against them. Which just shows the levels of indoctrination those poor fucks have been subjected to on this issue.
Here is what I want. Science. Objective. Empirical. Detached. Indifferent to outcome. Just do the science and connect the dots. The instant you start grinding your fucking axes you're not doing science. Period. End of story. And at that point, I have a very hard time taking anything you say seriously until it is clear to me that that has stopped. I feel/think I am being manipulated when someone has a position, claims they don't because they're scientists, and then reveals that they do by the way they conduct themselves.
It isn't okay.
I want all the political assholes out of this issue 20 years ago. Just leave. Al Gore can go fuck himself not because he's a democrat which is fine... but rather because he's ruined this topic. Now someone is going to say "but it isn't about Al Gore"... Except it is politically. He is so deep in this thing and has been so deep in it from its very inception that the only way you're getting him out of it is with a rain coat, goggles, and a chainsaw.
And that's going to be painful. The screams of delerious horror are to be expected. But the man is in something he has no business being in at that level. I want to see scientists in there with an established track record of putting science above their own petty egos. I want to see men and women that admit they're wrong all the time and say "cool" when that happens because mistakes teach you things. This is something politicians do not do... ever. Politicians and political movements never admit fault. They're fucking infalable to a man. They could blow their own feet off with a full clip of an automatic weapon, reload, and keep firing at their own jammed flesh and will still claim it was all part of some brilliant plan. Or just as hilarious it will all be the fault of some opponent that perverted their real intentions.
I'm fucking over it. These people are ruining science. Science is not politics. One person can contradict EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST ON EARTH... and be right. It has happened before. Is it unlikely? Sure. Here someone will say "you have to go with the majority" and I don't disagree with that. However, the politicization of the issue frankly casts some doubt on what sort of majority you have here and how it was constructed.
The issue is less about ebola, which I agree is not a real threat to the US, and more an ongoing symptom of misplaced priorities amongst civic officials and politicians.
You have to see this in the context of the last few years. We've had a series of institutional failures at several different federal departments and bureaus. While some of these issues are blown out of proportion for political gain it would be incorrect that there have not been some serious mistakes. And these issues compound. There are cover ups as there always are cover ups. But the thing is that most of them happen well after the issue is revealed. Which means we're all aware something happened but the administration won't talk about it.
Which leads to the Streisand effect. Every time they refuse to talk about things or disclose information it leaves everyone to ASSUME what actually happened. This is very dangerous. And it is obvious that those that are already distrustful of the administration are going to assume really dark things when they're given mostly redacted information and told they won't get more.
Consider 9/11 truthers for example. These people were basically the same thing on the left. What happened with them is that the government wasn't being especially forthcoming about certain pieces of information and so they had to fill in the blanks with their own guesses and assumptions. Already having a negative impression of the president and his politics they filled it in with an intentional plot to kill americans to create a police state or something.
So lets not make the mistake of thinking this is exclusively on one side of the line or the other here. This is a recurring response to government censorship and ass covering. You do that, and your opponents do not know what you did. But they don't trust you. So they fill in the blanks often as not with their worst fears.
Is Obama dealing with the Ebola situation properly?
1. Some basic quarantine procedures or at the very least a formal medical exam for people returning from those parts of the world is reasonable. Refusing to do that is going to make people crazy. And that crosses political lines by the way. This is freaking out a lot of liberals.
2. Appointing a political operative as the head of the CDC has terrible optics. I question whether it was a good idea administratively but politically this move has backfired horribly. This really just plays into the narrative that Obama only cares about how he looks and doesn't actually care about his job or his responsibilities.
3. Effectively giving license to the notion that opposition to his policies on this issue are explained by racism is frankly crude and beneath the dignity of his office.
And so on... He's not handling it well. Even his own party supporters are calling him on it. And of course, if his own supporters are calling him on it... you can only imagine how far his opponents will go on the issue.
Throwing away all criticism on the issue as being the misguided mutterings of ignorant people is counter productive and ignorant.
1. This makes it harder for anyone to compete with the likes of the cable monopolies because to provide and compete they'll have to first give away their products and services to people for free simply for the privilege of being able to sell them to anyone else. This effectively makes it impossible for anyone to compete with the cable monopolies. And in exchange for protecting and expanding their monopolies the price for them is cheap. The cost of course is paid by everyone.
2. This sort of thing is ultimately vote buying. We've been seeing this sort of thing go on for years. You want to win the election? Use public money or take money/resources/rights from one group of people that doesn't like you and give it to another group that is for sale. Instant win in the election every time. It is a perversion of democracy. Only those that pay should be able to vote on matters that are being funded.
No taxation without representation... remember? Well... why do you get representation without taxation? It is the same thing. Pay like everyone else or you have no right to influence what gets spent on whom.
So you are saying you agree with me and the patient system and IP rights are reasonable.
Okay... we have no disagreement.
This issue is concluded.
Or do you want to make a coherent point that uses contributing evidence or arguments that in anyway contradicts my position? Because you seemed to be disagreeing with me and then cited evidence that didn't support your position... and then made this post which seems to take something similar to my own side... which makes me wonder what the hell we're arguing about here?
I'm going to just assume you were agreeing me all along and this was just a failure in communication.... unless you want to correct that.
Furthermore, just citing a bad patient doesn't mean that it will be sustained in court.
Show me a bad patient sustained in court. And then I'll just point out flaws in the legal system. I'll point out that murderers at let go all the time by bad juries etc and yet we both agree murder should be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Failure to provide a counter argument means you have no argument.
Your comment is null. It literally might as well have not happened.
Either provide a credible rebuttal or your entire presence in this thread is null. You are serving excursively to waste my time until that happens. Full stop.
Every post you make in this thread is being counted as of now. And when I feel enough is enough... I'm just going to assume you have nothing. Declare you fail by default and move on.
Fair warning.
I had to look that one up. From what I can see, he was suing to get raw data disclosed so that Mann's methodology could be audited.
That you need to file a lawsuit to do that should actually give you some pause. That that information isn't already publicly available should give you pause. That Mann's work has been accepted by science in general without that information available for peer review should give you pause.
I am not saying I support anything that politician has done or said. I don't know a great deal about the man and I don't really care a great deal about him.
However, you referenced him and a lawsuit against penn state concerning climate change. I looked it up... and what he was asking for was a disclosure of information.
Name another field of science that would need to be threatened with a law suit to provide information that was fundemential to their core research?
Physics? Nope. Physicists are happy to give you all their data. ... I don't think they really need evidence... its sort of just applied logic but... they're happy to give it all to you.
Biology? Nope. Same.
Geology? Nope. Same.
Mathematics? Nope.
etc.
Name another field besides climate science where they don't want to disclose data. I actually know of at least one other field where that is actually common. But it suffers from a crippling amount of political control as well.
From what I can see, the common denominator in why a field gets cagey about disclosure... is politics OR corruption. I don't know of any other instance where scientists refuse to disclose information.
I dare you to contradict me.
... I mean personally.
What could you buy before and what can you buy now?
Because I am not rich... before or after... and it is more expensive now then it was before. I mean... significantly.
Now do I think we should help people that have a hard time getting medical care afford said care? Yes. Is the best method to provide that care to just throw money into the air until it covers the earth like leaves after autumn? Obviously not.
Here someone is going to say "but single payer would be better!"... Maybe... but then like... anything would be better then this stupid law. the law is dumb. What we had before for all its flaws was better. My care was cheaper. I am not in some amazing stratospheric yacht class of people that sips expensive brandies while I talk about the little people. This law made my care more expensive. Full stop.
Now here is where someone says "Okay, what is your solution because we need a better policy!". Okay, look at the price of college education over time. Graph it against the inflation rate. Notice something? Now do the same thing with the cost of housing prior to the crash. Notice something? What is happening is cost inflation due to government subsidization.
Basically what you are looking at in many markets is the effect that unlimited subsidization has on free market systems when they are purely demand side. That is, if you just give everyone money that can only be spent on a given product or service... people buy that product or service in greater volumes. That then not only consumes the supply of those products or services but also increases what people ultimately can pay for them because not only do they have their own personal resources to draw upon but also this big government check. And so naturally, even if the supply is increased, because people have more money to spend... the costs go up. And the more subsidization you throw into the market the more the prices go up. And the faster you do it, the faster the prices go up. If your level of subsidization is percentage based and not even a flat amount then your subsidization rate can feed back into the supply/demand price loop in real time. Which can mean rapid uncontrolled price inflation.
We've seen this before. It has happened many times because this is a lesson government and certain ideologues have a very hard time dealing with because it contradicts some political positions that are simply verifiability wrong.
Where am I going with this? Well, medical costs have been going through the same cost inflation for YEARS. In fact, the very justification for obamacare was that cost inflation. And the cost inflation was caused in large part by government subsidization of healthcare. Look at the price of healthcare prior to the subsidization for something like mending a broken arm. Something that hasn't changed remarkably in a generation. And you'll see the costs were a great deal lower after factoring for inflation.
So what are my solutions to this problem? Well, rather then give people money so they can pay for increasingly expensive medical care, why not try to make medical care cheaper for EVERYONE. Not by giving people money but effecting the market so that prices go down.
There are a lot of ways to do this sort of thing. There is a hospital in Texas for example that has a completely different administrative structure. They basically did away with the three upper floors of most hospitals that are full of people that just do paper work. And instead they give shift nurses administrative control over their domain. That in and of itself lowers the cost hugely.
The price of that is that the hospital outright refuses to deal with complicated paperwork from the insurance companies. They offer various ways of managing that. You can for example deal with the paper work yourself and it is your responsibility to see that the hospital gets paid or that you get reimbursed after paying the hospital out of pocket. They also have sort of a medical plan that covers JUST that hospital.
Whatever, pal. You're still not refuting anything I've said or engaging with me in an intellectual fashion.
You are aware of the monty python "argument clinic" sketch?
Contradiction is not an argument. You are not arguing with me simply by saying I am wrong. If that is as far as you go then you've failed in fact to substantively refute me.
As to whether or not you're following me around... hundreds if not thousands of people comment on most of the issues where you respond specifically to me. Given slashdot's policy only allowing so many comments a day and requiring a certain amount of time between comments... you are going out of your way to comment to ME. You could very easily comment on any of a dozen other people that are likewise disagreeing with something you believe. I'm hardly the only one that has these opinions.
Yet you comment on me with a high degree of frequency. Have you noticed how often I seek you in any topic that I am likewise commenting in to comment on you? I believe I may have done that once... like... two years ago. And yet ever since I see you popping into my comments about once every other week... and no less then once a month. Which is about as often as the AGW issues pop up in slashdot.
In any case, I really bare you no ill will. I just wish our relationship were a more rewarding one. Foes and opponents after all can strengthen people. We might bring out hidden strengths in each other. A battle of wits might be educational or at least fun.
But I don't get that from you sadly. You just pop into my comment, say something snarky, and then piss off. It is sort of boring.
Let me assume for the sake of argument that this is my fault. What would I need to do without changing my stance on any issue to attract you into an actual discussion? What ground rules would you need established/accepted?
Is this too much to hope or is this to be the nature of our relationship going forward? I say something you disagree with... you show up and say something snarky... I respond with something dismissive... next issue... rinse/repeat?
I'd like to think there could be more.
As to when it became politicized... please attempt to correct my chronology.
I will then point out that the AGW movement didn't become much of a thing until after Al Gore started pushing it. Prior to that point, it was a very minor issue and as a result was subjected to much less political perversion.
By making the issue a white hot political talking point... it is a political issue. Completely. Nothing left. It is turtles all the fucking way down and the only way to get back to what it was is to extract the politics, remove the penalities for not holding to the orthadoxy, and simply letting the scientists get on with their jobs.
You won't permit that because you find the issue to be politically useful. It is just a weapon to you. And because that is all it is to you that is all it is when you use it. It ceases to have scientific meaning in that context.
To paraphrase, if you really love science... then let it be free. Trying to control it, dominate it, and tie it to your various political agendas which exist indifferent to science merely undermines the credibility of the science. And if the science doesn't have credibility it has NOTHING. You are robbing science of the one thing most dear to it for petty political advancement.
And that is what is actually disgusting.
Nuclear is getting choked by the same people that hate the CO2. So... I'm increasingly for self generation as much as possible if only because it is harder for fucktards to control.
Anonymous coward issues baseless insult... oh god no... save me.
The main issue with the AC posts is that it is impossible to know if most of them are just the same sad individual. I mean, I get most of my abuse from ACs. And I have to wonder if they're all just some guy that loves me... that much.
It is kind of touching in a sad internet sort of way.
Anyway, as usual... back your shit up or it is a null comment.
Listen, we will get what we want right now by turning big monopoly ISPs into utilities.
However, we have to think strategically. If we only think tactically we will get out maneuvered.
Play chess for a moment. What happens when the big ISPs are utilities? Yes, they will be regulated more heavily but they will also have their protection from competition enshrined more deeply in law.
What is more, the federal government will gain increasing control over the internet. Consider the NSA for example. Do you for an instant think they won't exploit this situation? If the FCC starts dictating things to the ISPs how hard would it be for the NSA to go to the FCC and get them to put an NSA box at the ISP? Child's play.
And that is just the beginning.
The wild free days of the internet are over if we turn the ISPs into utilities. Will the ISPs fuck us on occasion? Yes. But I'll take that on an ongoing basis rather then give the feds total control. Because at least with the ISPs there is hope. With the feds it is gone. You'll start seeing regulations on free speech, requirements that people use real names on the internet, micromanaging of peer to peer content.
I mean seriously what do you think is going to happen once the feds get this power?
The solution has always been greater competition. it is the only way to eat our cake and have it too. With greater competition the ISPs can't fuck over their consumers without losing market share and they aren't being micromanaged by politicians.
Best of both worlds.
Competition. Please.
Then do them in dead zones. There are a few regions of the ocean where there is almost no life at all. They're aquatic deserts. Do it there.
Alternatively, you could just have very small blooms but spread them out over the whole world.
Who says you need to have a giant bloom that spans 400 miles in every direction? Why not hundreds of thousands of blooms that are something a single person could start? We could give away little kits. Give them to fishing boats, cargo ships, cruise liners, private yachters or something. Dump this in the water at these coordinates.
Whatever... you don't like that geo engineering idea... fine. But if you're reflexively against all geo engineering options then we have a problem.
1. That is when the hysteria over the issue began. Absent Al Gore and the massive funding of AGW research that ultimately requires holding to a specific view point... I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Take the politics out of the issue and you're science will be more credible.
keep the politics in and everything you do has to be double checked to sort the bullshit from the science. Just what is.
We see this with other fields of science as well. Especially gender studies for example which often have very biased statistics.
For example, would you say that 1 in 5 women are raped in college? Obviously not. But if you define rape as having a regrettable sexual encounter then you get about 1 in 5 women. Which is how rape is defined in some statistics.
Now that is clearly political bullshit. What you need to understand is that many differient fields of science have been perverted by political agendas which corrupts findings. And so when you read over their results, you have to fact check them because they're prone to exaggerate, misrepresent, or otherwise mislead. What is more the peer review process in many different fields has been suborned by circles of like minded people that all review each other's papers and serve as gatekeepers for anyone else to get peer review. Which means the whole peer review process becomes an unreliable means of determining whether something is valid or not.
As to reading what you've written. I question whether you read anything I write actually. You're personally hostile against me which is really sort of amusing. You've noted perhaps that I don't follow you around on the board gainsaying you... do I? No. Because I don't care about you. You're just another person on the site with another opinion. And I hold no personal anomosity against you. But you follow me around like a hateful puppy and I have to wonder why when you clearly don't find me to be compelling.
Why read me? If I were you and felt the way you do... I'd just ignore you. And before you claim that you're confronting someone that is spreading misinformation or whatever clap trap you're cooking up, you're not confronting me. You're following me around and throwing baseless insults at me. You're the old beggar woman that follows someone around to throw rotten fruit at him. I mean... that isn't a rebuttal. It is just inconvenient and annoying.
If you actually want to engage with me, I'm willing to do it. I always have been. But throwing out some cheap insults and then running away which has been your pattern is not a threat to my argument or my opinions. If anything, you demean yourself in the process... not me.
You're so eager to gainsay me that you didn't bother to actually read or understand my point.
My point was not that you can't do anything or that you can't use science.
My point was that if you involve politics WITH the science WHILE the science is being collected that you INFLUENCE the scientific process. And when you do that, the science becomes BIASED to your POLITICAL objectives.
You control the funding.
You control the peer review process.
You control hiring.
You control tenure.
You appoint politicians often in intentional organizations to audit and edit scientific findings.
Etc.
And then you take the product of that process and call it science.
It isn't. We can't know what the science is at this point because you've fucked with the process so horribly. For all either of us know the actual results could be anything.
You do what you've done to ANY institution and it will tell you the moon is made of green cheese.
Now does that mean AGW isn't real and isn't a threat? Absolutely not. It could be every bit as bad as you claim. However, you don't know that and neither does anyone but a few scientists that have studied it deeply. But what they say can't be trusted because you have a knife to their throat.
Lets say some scientist came out and said there was no AGW and it the world was fine. What would you immediately say about that person? You'd say they were wrong, bought off, crazy, etc. Never mind you've never read their research and don't actually know why they said that. You would assume they were wrong out of hand. And you would immediately take steps to destroy their career, shut them out of the process, etc.
Scientists are not stupid. They know what you'll do. They've seen it happen. So IF/WHEN they found such evidence, what makes you think they'd sacrifice everything to tell you something that you wouldn't listen to in the first place?
Your fanaticism, bullying, and intolerance has rendered the issue non-credible because we can't know what is going on anymore. The politics have fucked the issue up beyond repair.
Either withdraw the politics from the issue or you don't have science. You have politics. And politics are evidence of nothing.
Am I? And who are you? Oh that's right, no one knows because you hide your name. You could be advocating child porn or something and we'd never know.
Are you really so stupid that you're going to attempt ad hominem while even hiding your fake name?
Do you think my mother named me Karmashock at birth?
It isn't my real name. Its a fake name. But even that is too much of a reveal for you. You have to hide behind the AC handle and then presume to judge me?
And worse, your stupid insults are baseless. You've provided no evidence to substantiate anything you've said. You just showed up with an AC handle and started throwing out dumb insults.
*makes brushing motions* Begone, twit.
No.
I am saying that you cannot involve yourself with the people collecting that information or making those theories.
You CAN use the information but ONLY if you didn't influence them or pervert outcomes.
If you stand over their shoulders, control their funding, bully those that don't say what you want out of the process, and set up international organizations to intentionally create global institutional group think... then you can't call the outcome science.
It is just politics then.
Garbage in Garbage out.
Politics in Politics out.
You want science? Leave the scientists alone. Let them do science. Stop fucking with their funding. Stop bullying people out of the process that don't say what you want them to say.
And THEN we probably will get science. And THEN you can use that that product to push whatever.
But if you don't do that, then you don't have science. You have politics. And politics are not science.
No you didn't. Roger Revelle largely proposed and started the theory in science. This is the same fellow that personally educated Al Gore about it at Harvard.
And guess what he was towards the end of his life? A skeptic.
Guess what he was called when he said that? Senile.
Which is basically what happens whenever anyone criticizes the POLITICAL movement.
It isn't scientific and hasn't been for decades. There is science done in it but all of it is through a political lens. All of which is very regrettable.
I am not saying that you should be anti AGW. I am saying that the science is being corrupted and can't be trusted until the politicians are removed from the issue. The grant process furthermore cannot require given scientific conclusions which has also been an established quality of this topic for many years now.
1. Of course it is corporate welfare. That is the point of a government backed monopoly. The corporation goes to the politician and says "hey, I have money and influence which I will give to you if in return you'll make it illegal for anyone to compete with me."
2. As to equality of outcome, the monopolies only bother with that crap when they want to trick idiot politicians or idiot voters. The reality is that the stuff they pay out to actual poor people tends to be a pittance of what they make by having a monopoly. The only people that actually do well by the bribery are the politicians perhaps. And that is also a pittance.
Take TWC and Comcast's low income internet service... know how you get it? Its buried in their websites. Pretty deep. Like... I bet you'd have a hard time finding it. And you need an internet connection to get that far. So how many poor people do you think sign up for the services at those rates? Pretty much none of them because they can't find the promotions and just as likely they don't know the subsidies exist.
Seriously, the monopolies are bad for everyone. They're even bad for the big ISPs in the long run because they get lazy, stagnate, and will probably go through a collapse at some point simply because their tech will be so laughably out of date.
... everything. The cover ups are wall to wall.
This is moronically biased.
1. It got political when the likes of Al Gore got involved which was pretty much at the start of it. So this notion that it only became political when there was push back fails... history?... That or time and space and thus physics.
2. This whining about money from the evil oil companies... do you know how much money the governments of the world spend pushing a pro AGW message? Does it even begin to compare to the evil oil company's PR budgets? It doesn't. You fail at math.
So anyway, pathetic defense of indefensible politicization of important scientific discussion is rejected for being ignorant.
The geoengineers have the problem of not being as useful to the politicians. Every time the geo engineering side is brought up, they get shouted down by the... I don't know what to call them... but you know who I mean... and they just get discredited despite offering some pretty easy ways to possibly fix everything.
Seeding the oceans with fertilizer to create massive algae blooms was one such idea. Another one was injecting moisture into the upper atmosphere to stimulate cloud production.
Here is one of the things i find so irritating about this debate. We're on the cusp of so many transformative technologies and I don't think this issue is moving as fast as some people seem to think it is moving. I think as impatient as we are with our technological development, I think we have more then enough time to come up with the miracle tech that will just fix it.
I mean, genetically engineered bio fuel producing algae... or some other plant that that does the same thing. Practical fusion. Self assembling solar panels.
I mean... things are happening. We that fact of the pause in the warming as well as how slowly it was warming before suggests to me that we have time. Maybe a couple generations even. And with that sort of time we can reinvent our entire industrial economy.
I don't think we should panic and I don't find the politicization and hostility to be useful or constructive for anyone but people that find angry mobs useful. And those people tend to be assholes... so fuck them.
If a consumer buys stolen property it can be ceased by the legitimate owners at will without compensation.
The grievance is between the consumer and the thief who stole BOTH from the legitimate producer and from the consumer by selling stolen goods.
It sucks for the consumer but maybe next time they won't buy stuff from dodgy pete with the low low prices out of the back of a van in an alley.
... it is this belief that they can do these things without asking permission that is really troubling. The newspaper might have said yes if consulted. But the government didn't even ask. It did what it wanted to do and THAT is at the root of so many of these controversies.
The arrogance.
... really needs. More politicization, more exclusion, less debate, more demonetization, more "if it 10 percent possible then we should spend a 1 trillion on it now!", etc.
Cue the hordes of people that will say I'm supporting deniers or other equally politically loaded terms that don't have anything to do with science.
Gentlemen. This is a controversial issue. It just is. And that isn't going to go away by demonizing the opposition. Just won't. That just gives those people ammunition to say that you're afraid of debate or the science because you're just devolving into ad hominem and various political games rather then staying laser focused on the science.
Right now, some fool is trying to pen a response that says "oh you're automatically invalid because you ascribe to this political faction or that one."... Well congrats. You've proved my fucking point, you complete fucking retard.
I want to take this issue away from the politicians and the rabid foaming at the mouth political activists and just hand this back to the scientists. And that includes removing the stigmas in government research grants from saying one thing or another about climate change. It is literally impossible to keep your credibility on this issue if you only permit certain conclusions.
Now to show I'm not just supporting one side, I've seen a lot of bullshit science on the skeptic/denier side as well. Just silly make believe shit.
Here is what is going to blow the mind of some poor son of a bitch... I am on neither of these teams. *BOOM* Some of them probably can't even believe that. It isn't possible for anyone to be anything but with them or against them. Which just shows the levels of indoctrination those poor fucks have been subjected to on this issue.
Here is what I want. Science. Objective. Empirical. Detached. Indifferent to outcome. Just do the science and connect the dots. The instant you start grinding your fucking axes you're not doing science. Period. End of story. And at that point, I have a very hard time taking anything you say seriously until it is clear to me that that has stopped. I feel/think I am being manipulated when someone has a position, claims they don't because they're scientists, and then reveals that they do by the way they conduct themselves.
It isn't okay.
I want all the political assholes out of this issue 20 years ago. Just leave. Al Gore can go fuck himself not because he's a democrat which is fine... but rather because he's ruined this topic. Now someone is going to say "but it isn't about Al Gore"... Except it is politically. He is so deep in this thing and has been so deep in it from its very inception that the only way you're getting him out of it is with a rain coat, goggles, and a chainsaw.
And that's going to be painful. The screams of delerious horror are to be expected. But the man is in something he has no business being in at that level. I want to see scientists in there with an established track record of putting science above their own petty egos. I want to see men and women that admit they're wrong all the time and say "cool" when that happens because mistakes teach you things. This is something politicians do not do... ever. Politicians and political movements never admit fault. They're fucking infalable to a man. They could blow their own feet off with a full clip of an automatic weapon, reload, and keep firing at their own jammed flesh and will still claim it was all part of some brilliant plan. Or just as hilarious it will all be the fault of some opponent that perverted their real intentions.
I'm fucking over it. These people are ruining science. Science is not politics. One person can contradict EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST ON EARTH... and be right. It has happened before. Is it unlikely? Sure. Here someone will say "you have to go with the majority" and I don't disagree with that. However, the politicization of the issue frankly casts some doubt on what sort of majority you have here and how it was constructed.
You find that unfai
The issue is less about ebola, which I agree is not a real threat to the US, and more an ongoing symptom of misplaced priorities amongst civic officials and politicians.
You have to see this in the context of the last few years. We've had a series of institutional failures at several different federal departments and bureaus. While some of these issues are blown out of proportion for political gain it would be incorrect that there have not been some serious mistakes. And these issues compound. There are cover ups as there always are cover ups. But the thing is that most of them happen well after the issue is revealed. Which means we're all aware something happened but the administration won't talk about it.
Which leads to the Streisand effect. Every time they refuse to talk about things or disclose information it leaves everyone to ASSUME what actually happened. This is very dangerous. And it is obvious that those that are already distrustful of the administration are going to assume really dark things when they're given mostly redacted information and told they won't get more.
Consider 9/11 truthers for example. These people were basically the same thing on the left. What happened with them is that the government wasn't being especially forthcoming about certain pieces of information and so they had to fill in the blanks with their own guesses and assumptions. Already having a negative impression of the president and his politics they filled it in with an intentional plot to kill americans to create a police state or something.
So lets not make the mistake of thinking this is exclusively on one side of the line or the other here. This is a recurring response to government censorship and ass covering. You do that, and your opponents do not know what you did. But they don't trust you. So they fill in the blanks often as not with their worst fears.
Is Obama dealing with the Ebola situation properly?
1. Some basic quarantine procedures or at the very least a formal medical exam for people returning from those parts of the world is reasonable. Refusing to do that is going to make people crazy. And that crosses political lines by the way. This is freaking out a lot of liberals.
2. Appointing a political operative as the head of the CDC has terrible optics. I question whether it was a good idea administratively but politically this move has backfired horribly. This really just plays into the narrative that Obama only cares about how he looks and doesn't actually care about his job or his responsibilities.
3. Effectively giving license to the notion that opposition to his policies on this issue are explained by racism is frankly crude and beneath the dignity of his office.
And so on... He's not handling it well. Even his own party supporters are calling him on it. And of course, if his own supporters are calling him on it... you can only imagine how far his opponents will go on the issue.
Throwing away all criticism on the issue as being the misguided mutterings of ignorant people is counter productive and ignorant.
...
1. This makes it harder for anyone to compete with the likes of the cable monopolies because to provide and compete they'll have to first give away their products and services to people for free simply for the privilege of being able to sell them to anyone else. This effectively makes it impossible for anyone to compete with the cable monopolies. And in exchange for protecting and expanding their monopolies the price for them is cheap. The cost of course is paid by everyone.
2. This sort of thing is ultimately vote buying. We've been seeing this sort of thing go on for years. You want to win the election? Use public money or take money/resources/rights from one group of people that doesn't like you and give it to another group that is for sale. Instant win in the election every time. It is a perversion of democracy. Only those that pay should be able to vote on matters that are being funded.
No taxation without representation... remember? Well... why do you get representation without taxation? It is the same thing. Pay like everyone else or you have no right to influence what gets spent on whom.
So you are saying you agree with me and the patient system and IP rights are reasonable.
Okay... we have no disagreement.
This issue is concluded.
Or do you want to make a coherent point that uses contributing evidence or arguments that in anyway contradicts my position? Because you seemed to be disagreeing with me and then cited evidence that didn't support your position... and then made this post which seems to take something similar to my own side... which makes me wonder what the hell we're arguing about here?
I'm going to just assume you were agreeing me all along and this was just a failure in communication.... unless you want to correct that.
Review your citation:
http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?D...
That is a specific system.
Furthermore, just citing a bad patient doesn't mean that it will be sustained in court.
Show me a bad patient sustained in court. And then I'll just point out flaws in the legal system. I'll point out that murderers at let go all the time by bad juries etc and yet we both agree murder should be illegal.
Your move.