It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if their evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

Harleigh Kyson Jr.

However, I think the guidelines that were exposed are being used for political purposes though. Republican lawmakers aren’t interested in ensuring that these tests will be covered by insurance policies. In fact, they are refusing to support a bill ensuring that mammograms will be covered for all women aged 40+.

http://washingtonindependent.com/68547/republicans-blast-new-mammogram-guidelines-but-havent-supported-bill-ensuring-screenings

“Republicans on Capitol Hill were sure quick to go after the new federal guidelines recommending that women should seek routine mammograms beginning at age 50 instead of 40. “This is how rationing begins,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday on Capitol Hill. “This is when you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. This is what we have warned about.”

Blackburn was joined by GOP Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Sue Myrick (N.C.), Candice Miller (Mich.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio).

Funny, though, that none of the participants has signed on in support of legislation to ensure that all women aged 40 and up have access to routine mammograms. That bill, sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.

Only one Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), is among the 79 co-sponsors of Nadler’s bill.

The message from the Republicans seems to be: We’re wary of the government recommending fewer tests based on independent research, but it’s OK for private insurance companies, driven by profit motives, to deny access to the same services.”

So what we are getting from these Republican women, with the exception of the gentlelady from Florida, is a bunch of meaningless grandstanding. And Crystal is correct on the medical liability issue. Tort reform is not just unnecessary, but just another means of preventing access to the courts and limiting punative awards (normally to no more than 250k)

http://www.scnursinghomelaw.com/2009/07/articles/tort-reform/litigation-only-takes-up-046-of-total-health-care-spending/

But like I said, I’m not discouraging yearly exams. However, they have been unnecessarily given far too often in one year alone. And many times mammograms don’t catch the tumors when they are very small either.

If you are saying that this type of cost control – to reduce the number of unneeded exams – will somehow increase the chances of cancer in the future, then why do all the other industrialized countries who practice this kind of government ran health care have lower breast cancer rates than we do?

And as for that rediculous claim that “women can easily test themselves,” the recommendation includes that women no longer be taught to perform self-exams. Where do you propose women learn how to do their own exams? Mammograms can find cancer too small for women to notice on their own.

We demand preventative medicine in other areas. Why start restricting here? Will we next stop or restrict routine exams for colorectal cancer? How about heart stress tests or echocardiagrams? Bone density test for osteoporosis? What about thyroid?

Which of the tests in this article (not from Fox News, btw) do you want the government to throw out?