Socialized Health Care in the USA

[weakwarrior]

Stupid linear mode. I missed this post though I should have known you'd be indefatigable. Sorry.

I may be the one confused then. I thought you were implying that it was wrong to question science, since we know all the answers. I am not in the camp of people who believe that by not knowing everything we cannot do anything. I am in the camp that says before we head to the caves, and abandon our modern world we should be sure of the imminent melt down. That means to me, reasonable measures taken in response to solid predictions on very likely outcomes.

As I imagine you are well aware a lot of those words are subject to interpretation - "we head to the caves" (since you don't actually mean head to the caves), imminent, reasonable, solid, and very likely. As a result I'm not exactly sure how much you expect of the scientists other than more than they've done so far. However, if the scientists convinced themselves and their peers (the people who spend all their time and energy studying this) that there is enough reason to worry and start doing things then I'll trust them.

The government (EPA) needs to react to potential harm to people. If any harmed party can show that the EPA rules are based upon just the possibility of harm in 100 years, the EPA will get sued and lose. The difference is that of a program (which deals with current emissions), versus a penalty imposed by the EPA.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying there is no way for the government to try and ward off a disaster which will come in 100 years? If the answer is no (the question was in the negative and by 'no' here I mean the double negative) then if there is good evidence that there is a possibility of harm in 100 years then why should the EPA lose? The U.S. government (and others) successfully reduced CFC emissions because of possible harm. Or you mean that you think the evidence isn't good enough and by extension you think a judge will feel the same way? Then it's just the same debate so I'll move on.

That there is always meaningless white noise in any public debate. It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

1 person wrong 30 years ago = another person wrong now?

Well, according to the British court...

Seems like an interesting link but it's too late for me to look at this now. I will look at it though.

Hypotheses that are based upon non-scientific guesses are nonsense in my book. For example, to suggest that because temperatures are lower for 11 years means we may be entering into a new ice age.

Obviously we disagree on whether it's nonscientific.