Otherwise known as, "regulation to keep the competition out".
It seems to me that the tendency to over-regulate in order to give advantage to existing market movers simply isn't justified. Yes, you need to deal with liability, but there's nothing that says that over-regulation is the only (or the best) way to do it.
So, according to you, unfalsifiable hypotheses, like astrology, or creationism, can be considered science the same way we consider astronomy and evolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your beliefs are colliding with facts again
Of course Karl Popper didn't define science - he simply wrote about the most basic requirement for the scientific method, that of falsifiability.
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required, by what method do you exclude astrology or creationism from being "science"? If falsifiability is not going to be the tool you use for demarcation, exactly what do you propose?
non-profit doesn't mean zero salary. It means charging just enough to cover costs
So, doctors and nurses, and other healthcare employees should charge only enough to cover a small, 2 bedroom house in a modest neighborhood, grocery money, utility money, and maybe a small entertainment budget?
If you're going to decry the profit made by some insurance company, but give a pass to all the salaries being paid, couldn't they just take their "profit", give it as salary to their employees, and call it "covering costs"?
There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, except the US, have fully or partially socialized healthcare.
There is a reason that all Western Style Democracies, with fully or partially socialized healthcare, have to ration their care. There simply isn't unlimited resources to give everyone everything they want anytime they want.
YOU are the one claiming all the experts are wrong; the burden of proof is on you to disprove the science.
And here's where you fail - appeal to unnamed authorities is the logical fallacy perpetrated by religions, not science.
The burden of proof us this - if we're doing science with AGW, we need to start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Thus far, no such statement has ever been constructed.
Once we get that first step, we're doing science, and can decide what is right and wrong. Before then, all you're doing is preaching.
I'm just fine to trust the majority of the worlds scientists;
The fact that you outsource your rational thought processes to others may be fine for you, but I prefer not to be a sheeple
Sheeple don't follow expert opinion; they are herded by whatever barks at them or feeds them
You've been told what expert opinion is by the forces that bark at you and feed you
The two party thing is a false dialemma to distract slow people
No, actually, it's designed to maximize fund raising potential. If one part was completely dominant, nobody would contribute to the winners (because they're already going to win), and nobody would contribute to the losers (because they're already going to lose). Keeping the two parties carefully balanced at as close to 50/50 as possible maximizes fund raising potential, because both sides are scared. This leads to odd pairings like, "anti-death penalty + pro abortion", or "smaller government + anti-gay-marriage", or "anti-creationism + pro AGW" - it's almost certainly a calculated division of hypocritical views in order to make sure the final tallies are close to an even split.
It is possible to get to a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW - but once done, and treated like science rather than propaganda, the power of the Church of Global Warming diminishes. This is why it has been studiously avoided by those pushing for policy changes due to AGW. The question you have to ask yourself is, are you willing to listen to your experts in science when they won't start with the very basics of the scientific method?
As Feynman once put it, "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts". Great man.
Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein
