Wow! How is this possible given that the intensity of radio waves diminish at a factor equal to the square of the distance? That's some powerful radar or a darned big capture area of the antenna here on earth. How is it distinguishable from CBR.
I DID my research. VistA is open sourced and we were looking at it several years ago. We rejected it. I find as a patient of the VA that the doctors spend 3/4 of their exam room time trying on the PC and usually zero time examining the patient. The remainder is spent asking questions. There is some overlap with the Doctor typing while asking questions. Overall I'd say the quality of care is much lower with the doctor reduced to the role of interface between the patient and the EMR system. Much less doctoring much more bureaucratic nonsense.
Actually the backup generators were located in the basement as per GE's original design. Engineers requested to locate the generators in a more secure (from tsunamis) location when the plants were built but were overruled by upper management.
However the location of the generators at Fukushima is irrelevant to my point that had the power grid been a distributed system with local batteries or what have you then all residents would not have lost power when the plant was flooded. This is not an argument about the design of the centralized power plant but an argument that a centralized power plant need not be used or even exist.
Putting all of ones eggs in one basket, all your reactors on one backup generator or all your data in one place is the reason for these catastrophic failures. Back 30 odd years ago we had mainframes, I used to operate an IBM 360, then along came the internet and the distributed computing model where the system didn't have all of its data in even one box in a company. There was a box on everyone's desktop. Now that's come full circle with the "Cloud" initiative where all your data is housed in one place (datacenter) again.
The reason the cloud was "invented" was to bring back the more profitable mainframe/dumb terminal business model.
And they can... Medical devices are subject to very stringent standards and testing for approval. They are also tailored to boost some frequencies more than others.
Consensus is not science. It is not evidence. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.
Besides this is a losing argument on both sides because it's like trying to disprove the existence of God.
And the theoretic doubt of the occasional scientist you speak of is not a lone or even a few voices. They are as numerous as the true believers such as yourself. When you start with a hypothesis, gather all the data you can that agrees with that hypothesis and downplay or ignore all data which disagrees with it, what remains is a scientific consensus of the true believers, but it isn't science.
I find it odd that the theory of evolution is shown in a light of being an evolving science which is correct in that the theory changes as more and new evidence is discovered. Yet the theory of climate change is shown as more of a dogma where the scientific community is a consensus which it is not and any dissent to the contrary is put down as being "unscientific".
There is plenty of evidence refuting the claims of anthropogenic climate change which is available to anyone who has an internet connection and can find google.com
Teaching science as a dogma is contrary to the scientific method. The ACC folks just can't see that the dogma they're teaching is just as bad as the scientific consensus against plate tectonics which was taught in schools well into the 60's. Real science is not a consensus. Only in the fullness of time will the truth be discovered but wrecking our economy in the name of a theory which is far from proven is the wrong way to go.
Here is a particularly scholarly site which puts the "ACC consensus" in the proper light. http://geologist-1011.net/
As long as your data is out of your hands it is extremely vulnerable. The hosting company only cares about the money you pay them and little else. If they're hacked, too bad. If they're servers are down, too bad. if the justice department comes with a request, all your data belong to them. Host your own systems on your own property and make your own "in-house" backups. The cloud by definition is vaporware.
1. All causations involve correlations. Carbon dioxide certainly is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses do cause warming, so certainly an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming. If it isn't the carbon dioxide causing the warming, what is it?
Actually there IS a strong correlation between the variability of the Sun and global temperatures. I.E. When the sun is hotter the Earth is warmer and when the Sun is cooler the Earth is cooler. Yet. this data is completely ignored by climate scientists. -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The idea that internet bandwidth is a fixed level and cannot be increased is pure nonsense. Greater demand for bandwidth results in more bandwidth capacity being created. This is how a free market works.
Because of the Uniform Vehicle Code 98-100% of states have very similar laws and when it comes to traffic lights, if the laws were radically different you might have a basis for challenging the law on the grounds of deception.
If your bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are considered to be in the intersection. In fact you can be cited for blocking the intersection if you ARE in the crosswalk. Additionally it is a violation to back out of an intersection once you have entered it. I got a ticket for that.
If your front bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are OBLIGATED to clear the intersection and since you can't back up you must either go forward through the intersection or refrain from entering it if you cannot reasonably be sure you could go all the way through safely.
Some traffic signals are delayed for the express purpose of allowing vehicles to clear the intersection before cross traffic is given the green light.
The length of the yellow light is of no effect on whether you ran a light and for legal purposes it is the same as a green light. There is no crime of entering on a yellow light. There are only the crimes of entering on a red light or blocking the intersection.
My problem is NOT with any person or corporation (although my belief that corporations having a special status via government charter is inherently evil) making a profit.
My problem is with the government controlling things via mandated coverage, mandated prescription drug coverage and every other government regulation which seeks to disconnect the price/benefit market mechanism between the consumer and the provider.
When the consumer no longer has to pay directly out of his pocket for care when it is delivered, he tends to not care as much about what the care costs because the insurance or the government will pay for it.
With insurance being mandated the consumer doesn't have a choice whether he gets the insurance or not so he tends to demand the best care his insurance will pay for. Doctors are more than happy to provide the most expensive treatments whether they are of any great benefit or not. There are lots of procedures and expensive tests which are of little benefit and may actually cause more harm. Doctors aren't perfect and they want to cover their behinds in case of the all to common malpractice lawsuits.
And I haven't even scratched the surface of the rapacious prices for drugs from Big Pharma.
The FDA bears a large part of the blame for high medical costs.
My main point is simply that government intervention has the unintended consequence of driving up costs.
As to what my recommendations are for fixing the problem if you haven't already guessed it, deregulate the medical industry and abolish the FDA completely. Remove the corporate shield that makes it impossible to sue the actual people who own the large corporations for malpractice and their callous disregard for thew welfare of their customers (patients).
Non-profit's are great and we should have more of them. we used to have lots of them but then government intervention has reduced the number and effectiveness of non-profits across the board.
I would like suggest to anyone that they read this book; More Harm Than Good by Alan Zelicoff and Michael Bellomo.
Not knowing the average age of posters I'm willing to bet it's somewhere around 30. Well I'm almost 60 and I can tell you that health care used to be cheap. A doctor's visit was $8 and insurance cost me around $30/month but most people didn't need it because we were more fit back then.
So what happened? In one word I'll tell you. Government!
First the government mandated that employers provide insurance to their employees. The insurance companies loved this since it brought them more customers. The side effect however was that having insurance meant that instead of simply putting a band-aid on it people went to the doctor or the emergency room and the insurance company got billed. Higher demand and assurance of payment meant that doctors and hospitals could raise fees. Higher costs forced up insurance rates. Unfortunately the higher costs put more burden on people with fixed incomes and the poor. And lets not forget the unions hand in all of this.
So government created Medicare and Medicaid.
This was fucking great for the doctors, hospitals and even the insurance companies. Doctors and hospitals could charge more for their services and the insurance companies could raise their rates. More money running through the insurance companies means more cash flow, always a good thing.
Meanwhile people began to believe that medical care was a right and not something you had to pay for. The disconnecting of the cost-benefit ratio was removed from the consumer and thrust into the hands of Insurance companies and faceless bureaucrats.
Things went along like that with ever increasing costs and more demands for government to do something. So in order to get elected the knotheads in congress made more poorly thought-out laws. They kept getting elected by knothead voters. And so it goes.
So now, not only is medical care extremely expensive but the government will now force everyone to buy insurance even if they are young and strong and don't need it.
And the costs WILL go up.
Cost cutting won't work and will result in less quality and less availability. Even more of the costs will be taken up by paper(computer)work. I do consulting for a large medical clinic and about 1/3 or more of the staff have nothing to do with providing health care. Their jobs are exclusively doing the work necessary to bill the insurance companies or the government for payment. The billing costs so much that people with no insurance at all get a greatly reduced rate for care.
So everybody, despite all of the assurances from the news parrots and government lackeys, costs WILL go up and taxes WILL go up to pay for it. Either taxes will go up or the debt will go up. My guess is both will go up. Increases in taxes and debt are unsustainable and eventually lenders will stop lending and taxpayers won't be able to pay.
In the case of taking samples from infants or others incapable of giving consent the rule should be that their property rights should be protected. One doesn't steal candy from babies. Although there may be a case of liability if parents fail to take care of their infants by getting blood tests that still doesn't invalidate the property rights of the child. There have been cases where a sibling was conceived for the express purpose of making that child a donor. this is wrong for the very same reason. A person's body is his/her property and just because a person can't legally consent to having part of his body taken doesn't make it ok for his guardian to do it.
My body is mine. The products of my body are mine. I can sell body parts or rent my body as I see fit.
Laws which violate this principle, even if it's for the person's own good are wrong. An exception of course is made for infants or incompetents to ensure their good health but then using them or their parts for other purposes is wrong.
It's really a simple principal of property rights.
You are wrong. When a person discards human waste, hair, nail, urine, feces, saliva, blood, cancer cells or whatever there is no legal expectation of privacy or property as you say. However when a tissue sample is given there is an expectation that it will be used ONLY for the purpose for which it was given. Any other use without the explicit permission of the owner is wrong and should be prohibited.
If a person drinks from a soda can and then discards that can then any DNA on the can, assuming traceability, can be used in a criminal case but if the person keeps the can then discards it without traceability then it cannot.
In the case of whether a doctor would need permission for a tissue sample to be entered into a database or some other and especially commercial use would be clear. A person's tissue is his property and cannot be used for purposes other than what he has explicitly permitted. In the case of the cancer patient you mentioned her body would become property of her estate and any use commercial or otherwise would need to be approved by the patient's heirs. If profits are made from a tissue sample then the heirs are entitled to royalties.
The idea of negative effects upon society by enforcing privacy and property rights are simply well, socialistic.
It isn't that we have less privacy. It is that the information about us is now much more accessible. Computers and databases along with marketing droids and NSA/CIA/KGB(homeland security) needs demand that as much data be compiled as possible for use by whomever wants it for a price. In the past compiling such huge databases just wasn't practical. It wasn't because the data wasn't out there but it was in the form of paper in files but not on computer media. Now everything is digitized and available at a moments notice.
If you want privacy, or at least more of it there are steps you can take which make personal data harder to get in the first place but unless you live in a cave in the middle of the desert with no communication or interaction with other humans you will never achieve total privacy.
UH,NO. Cutting CO2 emissions is enormously costly. CO2 is a trace gas of which human action contributes about 3% the balance of which comes from natural sources. Further the ice core evidence that AGW supporters cite is outdated by finer analysis that show the increase in CO2 levels actually happened AFTER periods of warming.
CO2 is essential to plant life. It is neither advantageous nor is it advisable to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Because the human caused contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so low (3%) there is scant evidence for any increase of CO2 levels in the air. Plant life does an excellent job of reducing CO2 in the air and any increase simply spurs plant growth slightly which is usually desirable. Natural sources of CO2 account for 97% of all CO2 that is emitted into the Air yet we see very little evidence to indicate any AGW at all. The hypothesis that there would be positive feedback of any increase in CO2 has absolutely no basis in fact and there is zero evidence that this has happened here or elsewhere. If it does happen where is the evidence that it has happened in the past? There should be wild swings detectable in the ice cores and tree rings etc... but the evidence is missing or data has outright been falsified.
The AGW hypothesis is just that. An hypothesis without any observed data to support it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis quite the same as the existence of God is a hypothesis. It depends on faith in the absence of verifiable data.
So my answer to AGW faithful is PROVE IT with verifiable data. SO far they refuse to do so and instead cook what data they have in order to prove their hypothesis. A valid theory however is used in an attempt to explain observed data. This is the scientific method. The tail does not wag the dog.
Slashdot Mirror
Government masters who by their nature violate ZAP are equally evil no matter the color of their skin.
Wow! How is this possible given that the intensity of radio waves diminish at a factor equal to the square of the distance? That's some powerful radar or a darned big capture area of the antenna here on earth. How is it distinguishable from CBR.
I DID my research. VistA is open sourced and we were looking at it several years ago. We rejected it. I find as a patient of the VA that the doctors spend 3/4 of their exam room time trying on the PC and usually zero time examining the patient. The remainder is spent asking questions. There is some overlap with the Doctor typing while asking questions. Overall I'd say the quality of care is much lower with the doctor reduced to the role of interface between the patient and the EMR system. Much less doctoring much more bureaucratic nonsense.
IMHO
Interesting. But what we most need is NOT a better government. What we need is less government and eventually no government at all.
A sure way to screw up a system is to cede control to the government.
I consult with 2 medical clinics which will be implementing EMR this year. I'm sure to make a lot of money but I'm not looking forward to it.
The Veterans Administration uses an EMR system with the odd acronym of VISTA. There could be a clue there somewhere.
Actually the backup generators were located in the basement as per GE's original design. Engineers requested to locate the generators in a more secure (from tsunamis) location when the plants were built but were overruled by upper management.
However the location of the generators at Fukushima is irrelevant to my point that had the power grid been a distributed system with local batteries or what have you then all residents would not have lost power when the plant was flooded. This is not an argument about the design of the centralized power plant but an argument that a centralized power plant need not be used or even exist.
Putting all of ones eggs in one basket, all your reactors on one backup generator or all your data in one place is the reason for these catastrophic failures. Back 30 odd years ago we had mainframes, I used to operate an IBM 360, then along came the internet and the distributed computing model where the system didn't have all of its data in even one box in a company. There was a box on everyone's desktop. Now that's come full circle with the "Cloud" initiative where all your data is housed in one place (datacenter) again.
The reason the cloud was "invented" was to bring back the more profitable mainframe/dumb terminal business model.
And they can... Medical devices are subject to very stringent standards and testing for approval. They are also tailored to boost some frequencies more than others.
Consensus is not science. It is not evidence. Scientific consensus is an oxymoron.
Besides this is a losing argument on both sides because it's like trying to disprove the existence of God.
And the theoretic doubt of the occasional scientist you speak of is not a lone or even a few voices. They are as numerous as the true believers such as yourself. When you start with a hypothesis, gather all the data you can that agrees with that hypothesis and downplay or ignore all data which disagrees with it, what remains is a scientific consensus of the true believers, but it isn't science.
There's not one shred of evidence to disprove the existence of God. But try to dissuade a true believer that God doesn't exist.
There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.
I find it odd that the theory of evolution is shown in a light of being an evolving science which is correct in that the theory changes as more and new evidence is discovered. Yet the theory of climate change is shown as more of a dogma where the scientific community is a consensus which it is not and any dissent to the contrary is put down as being "unscientific".
There is plenty of evidence refuting the claims of anthropogenic climate change which is available to anyone who has an internet connection and can find google.com
Teaching science as a dogma is contrary to the scientific method. The ACC folks just can't see that the dogma they're teaching is just as bad as the scientific consensus against plate tectonics which was taught in schools well into the 60's. Real science is not a consensus. Only in the fullness of time will the truth be discovered but wrecking our economy in the name of a theory which is far from proven is the wrong way to go.
Here is a particularly scholarly site which puts the "ACC consensus" in the proper light. http://geologist-1011.net/
As long as your data is out of your hands it is extremely vulnerable. The hosting company only cares about the money you pay them and little else. If they're hacked, too bad. If they're servers are down, too bad. if the justice department comes with a request, all your data belong to them. Host your own systems on your own property and make your own "in-house" backups. The cloud by definition is vaporware.
1. All causations involve correlations. Carbon dioxide certainly is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses do cause warming, so certainly an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause warming. If it isn't the carbon dioxide causing the warming, what is it?
Actually there IS a strong correlation between the variability of the Sun and global temperatures. I.E. When the sun is hotter the Earth is warmer and when the Sun is cooler the Earth is cooler. Yet. this data is completely ignored by climate scientists.
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world.
Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The idea that internet bandwidth is a fixed level and cannot be increased is pure nonsense. Greater demand for bandwidth results in more bandwidth capacity being created. This is how a free market works.
In the National Broadband Plan, Local TV broadcasters might be forced to give up their spectrum 'voluntarily' to be re-purposed for broadband;
"Voluntarily". Is that similar to how the Income Tax is based on "voluntary compliance"?
Because of the Uniform Vehicle Code 98-100% of states have very similar laws and when it comes to traffic lights, if the laws were radically different you might have a basis for challenging the law on the grounds of deception.
If your bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are considered to be in the intersection. In fact you can be cited for blocking the intersection if you ARE in the crosswalk. Additionally it is a violation to back out of an intersection once you have entered it. I got a ticket for that.
If your front bumper is over the first line of the crosswalk you are OBLIGATED to clear the intersection and since you can't back up you must either go forward through the intersection or refrain from entering it if you cannot reasonably be sure you could go all the way through safely.
Some traffic signals are delayed for the express purpose of allowing vehicles to clear the intersection before cross traffic is given the green light.
The length of the yellow light is of no effect on whether you ran a light and for legal purposes it is the same as a green light. There is no crime of entering on a yellow light. There are only the crimes of entering on a red light or blocking the intersection.
IANAL
Edwin
Thank you for the well written response.
My problem is NOT with any person or corporation (although my belief that corporations having a special status via government charter is inherently evil) making a profit.
My problem is with the government controlling things via mandated coverage, mandated prescription drug coverage and every other government regulation which seeks to disconnect the price/benefit market mechanism between the consumer and the provider.
When the consumer no longer has to pay directly out of his pocket for care when it is delivered, he tends to not care as much about what the care costs because the insurance or the government will pay for it.
With insurance being mandated the consumer doesn't have a choice whether he gets the insurance or not so he tends to demand the best care his insurance will pay for. Doctors are more than happy to provide the most expensive treatments whether they are of any great benefit or not. There are lots of procedures and expensive tests which are of little benefit and may actually cause more harm. Doctors aren't perfect and they want to cover their behinds in case of the all to common malpractice lawsuits.
And I haven't even scratched the surface of the rapacious prices for drugs from Big Pharma.
The FDA bears a large part of the blame for high medical costs.
My main point is simply that government intervention has the unintended consequence of driving up costs.
As to what my recommendations are for fixing the problem if you haven't already guessed it, deregulate the medical industry and abolish the FDA completely. Remove the corporate shield that makes it impossible to sue the actual people who own the large corporations for malpractice and their callous disregard for thew welfare of their customers (patients).
Non-profit's are great and we should have more of them. we used to have lots of them but then government intervention has reduced the number and effectiveness of non-profits across the board.
I would like suggest to anyone that they read this book; More Harm Than Good by Alan Zelicoff and Michael Bellomo.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Harm-Than-Good-Treatments/dp/0814400272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269465093&sr=8-1
And we should take the word of a person with as bad grammar and spelling skills as you have?
Lets be real here, a license doesn't allow you to drive- if ti did you'd have to swipe it to start a car.
SHIT! Don't go putting ideas into their heads!
Not knowing the average age of posters I'm willing to bet it's somewhere around 30. Well I'm almost 60 and I can tell you that health care used to be cheap. A doctor's visit was $8 and insurance cost me around $30/month but most people didn't need it because we were more fit back then.
So what happened? In one word I'll tell you. Government!
First the government mandated that employers provide insurance to their employees. The insurance companies loved this since it brought them more customers. The side effect however was that having insurance meant that instead of simply putting a band-aid on it people went to the doctor or the emergency room and the insurance company got billed. Higher demand and assurance of payment meant that doctors and hospitals could raise fees. Higher costs forced up insurance rates. Unfortunately the higher costs put more burden on people with fixed incomes and the poor. And lets not forget the unions hand in all of this.
So government created Medicare and Medicaid.
This was fucking great for the doctors, hospitals and even the insurance companies. Doctors and hospitals could charge more for their services and the insurance companies could raise their rates. More money running through the insurance companies means more cash flow, always a good thing.
Meanwhile people began to believe that medical care was a right and not something you had to pay for. The disconnecting of the cost-benefit ratio was removed from the consumer and thrust into the hands of Insurance companies and faceless bureaucrats.
Things went along like that with ever increasing costs and more demands for government to do something. So in order to get elected the knotheads in congress made more poorly thought-out laws. They kept getting elected by knothead voters. And so it goes.
So now, not only is medical care extremely expensive but the government will now force everyone to buy insurance even if they are young and strong and don't need it.
And the costs WILL go up.
Cost cutting won't work and will result in less quality and less availability. Even more of the costs will be taken up by paper(computer)work. I do consulting for a large medical clinic and about 1/3 or more of the staff have nothing to do with providing health care. Their jobs are exclusively doing the work necessary to bill the insurance companies or the government for payment. The billing costs so much that people with no insurance at all get a greatly reduced rate for care.
So everybody, despite all of the assurances from the news parrots and government lackeys, costs WILL go up and taxes WILL go up to pay for it. Either taxes will go up or the debt will go up. My guess is both will go up. Increases in taxes and debt are unsustainable and eventually lenders will stop lending and taxpayers won't be able to pay.
I hear the economy in Argentina is improving.
In the case of taking samples from infants or others incapable of giving consent the rule should be that their property rights should be protected. One doesn't steal candy from babies. Although there may be a case of liability if parents fail to take care of their infants by getting blood tests that still doesn't invalidate the property rights of the child. There have been cases where a sibling was conceived for the express purpose of making that child a donor. this is wrong for the very same reason. A person's body is his/her property and just because a person can't legally consent to having part of his body taken doesn't make it ok for his guardian to do it.
My body is mine. The products of my body are mine. I can sell body parts or rent my body as I see fit.
Laws which violate this principle, even if it's for the person's own good are wrong. An exception of course is made for infants or incompetents to ensure their good health but then using them or their parts for other purposes is wrong.
It's really a simple principal of property rights.
I was speaking about right vs wrong and not strictly legal issues although why the two should be separate issues I cannot say.
Just because courts have decided that some practices are legal doesn't make them right morally or ethically.
In the past courts have decided that certain people had no legal right to their own bodies at all. This was called slavery.
Taking a body part without permission is wrong even if it is legal.
Edwin
You are wrong. When a person discards human waste, hair, nail, urine, feces, saliva, blood, cancer cells or whatever there is no legal expectation of privacy or property as you say. However when a tissue sample is given there is an expectation that it will be used ONLY for the purpose for which it was given. Any other use without the explicit permission of the owner is wrong and should be prohibited.
If a person drinks from a soda can and then discards that can then any DNA on the can, assuming traceability, can be used in a criminal case but if the person keeps the can then discards it without traceability then it cannot.
In the case of whether a doctor would need permission for a tissue sample to be entered into a database or some other and especially commercial use would be clear. A person's tissue is his property and cannot be used for purposes other than what he has explicitly permitted. In the case of the cancer patient you mentioned her body would become property of her estate and any use commercial or otherwise would need to be approved by the patient's heirs. If profits are made from a tissue sample then the heirs are entitled to royalties.
The idea of negative effects upon society by enforcing privacy and property rights are simply well, socialistic.
Edwin
It isn't that we have less privacy. It is that the information about us is now much more accessible. Computers and databases along with marketing droids and NSA/CIA/KGB(homeland security) needs demand that as much data be compiled as possible for use by whomever wants it for a price. In the past compiling such huge databases just wasn't practical. It wasn't because the data wasn't out there but it was in the form of paper in files but not on computer media. Now everything is digitized and available at a moments notice.
If you want privacy, or at least more of it there are steps you can take which make personal data harder to get in the first place but unless you live in a cave in the middle of the desert with no communication or interaction with other humans you will never achieve total privacy.
UH,NO. Cutting CO2 emissions is enormously costly. CO2 is a trace gas of which human action contributes about 3% the balance of which comes from natural sources. Further the ice core evidence that AGW supporters cite is outdated by finer analysis that show the increase in CO2 levels actually happened AFTER periods of warming.
CO2 is essential to plant life. It is neither advantageous nor is it advisable to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Because the human caused contribution to atmospheric CO2 is so low (3%) there is scant evidence for any increase of CO2 levels in the air. Plant life does an excellent job of reducing CO2 in the air and any increase simply spurs plant growth slightly which is usually desirable. Natural sources of CO2 account for 97% of all CO2 that is emitted into the Air yet we see very little evidence to indicate any AGW at all. The hypothesis that there would be positive feedback of any increase in CO2 has absolutely no basis in fact and there is zero evidence that this has happened here or elsewhere. If it does happen where is the evidence that it has happened in the past? There should be wild swings detectable in the ice cores and tree rings etc... but the evidence is missing or data has outright been falsified.
The AGW hypothesis is just that. An hypothesis without any observed data to support it is NOT a theory. It is a hypothesis quite the same as the existence of God is a hypothesis. It depends on faith in the absence of verifiable data.
So my answer to AGW faithful is PROVE IT with verifiable data. SO far they refuse to do so and instead cook what data they have in order to prove their hypothesis. A valid theory however is used in an attempt to explain observed data. This is the scientific method. The tail does not wag the dog.
Edwin