The fact that most of the climate change of the last century is anthropogenic does not mean that there isn't natural climate change over different time intervals.

That's not a fact, that's an assertion.

Show me your necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that excludes natural climate change at any rate over 50%.

Effect is unpredictable -> we don't know if it goes positive or negative.

Effect is insignificant -> we are rather sure that it does not go greatly positive or greatly negative.

Both can be true.

If "for profit" isn't a phrase that belongs in the realm of healthcare, should we force doctors and nurses to work for just room and board?

Single-payer only means inefficient, rationed healthcare. It means people dying on waiting lists, and governments faking the documentation to avoid the embarrassment.

Deny natural climate change all you want - it'll keep happening long after you're done arguing, the way it has every moment before :)

Sierra Club. League of Conservation Voters. World Wildlife Fund.

If you stacked up all the liberal money thrown at AGW in one pile, and all the conservative money thrown against AGW in another pile, the liberals would be on top by a huge amount.

You want to talk science? State a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Want to be a Democrat sheeple? Just listen to Al Gore, or any of his fellow hollywood elite.

I had a very similar experience - the more you applied any sort of rational skepticism, the more defensive the proponents of AGW got. It became a team sport, rather than a scientific inquiry.

The truth is, humans have a non-zero effect on our environment.

The truth is, this effect is almost surely completely unpredictable, and quite likely insignificant.

When expressing rational doubt is greeted with censure, and demands to "step in line", you've stopped doing science, and started preaching yet another religion.

We could make clear that you can believe in natural climate change and still be a liberal Democrat.

There is excellent and comprehensive evidence that routine and chronic care reduces overall costs by cutting the frequency of acute exacerbations.

No. You're mistaking the idea that *some* routine and chronic care reduces overall costs, means that *all* routine and chronic care reduces overall costs.

Frankly, for those things that do reduce overall costs, the consumer should be willing to pay out of pocket, given the financial payback.

Part of the problem, of course, is that common wisdom on very basic things, like diet and exercise, are completely contrary to good practice - the past 40 years of "low-fat" diet and exercise advice are not only ineffective, but dangerous. Type 2 diabetes is actually a preventable and reversible condition, but our advice has actually *caused* it.

Sorry to hear about your heart attack - but if it is the case that the $70k you didn't have to pay wasn't funded by your previous premium payments (minus overhead), it does mean that other *people* (not the insurance company, it gets to keep its overhead no matter what) ended up funding the difference.

As for routine and chronic care, it's often the most expensive part of health care - the various drugs, tests, and heavy attention given to say, people on dialysis, ends up being a huge cost driver compared to heart attacks, not only because of frequency of condition, but because of frequency of treatment. Putting a stent in happens once. A weekly dialysis is massively more often.

Road hazards are accidents.

Normal, routine wear of tires isn't covered, unlike routine health care that should be FFS instead. (although someone did mention "warranty" plans that are scams to charge you than what routine care would cost - the point still stands, though, since those scams are by definition expensive and inefficient)

No, if you make routine and chronic care FFS, then you encourage people to be price sensitive and help drive costs down. A vast majority of "preventive treatments" actually do nothing to reduce expenses in the future.

We've setup a system where there is such a huge gap between the consumer and the actual payer, that no rational decisions can be made. When things are "free", there's no incentive to be careful with $$, or to be more efficient with care.

Yes, that's correct, I'm not doing what you asked for :)

And yes, that's correct, you've failed to show a falsifiable version of AGW, or accept one that was shown to you as a crib note :)