Dan Crawford | June 9, 2017 5:00 am
I read stuff from KevinMD every day — a web site where medical doctors post their opinions. Doctors are under the impression — they have be “authoritatively” directed that individual physicians (as opposed to doctors employed by organizations) may not legally combine to bargain over wages — that would supposedly violate anti-trust laws.
True enough the way the law is enforced — if, the big if, they combine to set prices for individual patients.
Not true, as I tried to explain on the blog, if combining to bargain with a giant actor on the other side of the table, like Blue Cross. Not of matter of policy choice either: the First Amendment protects freedom of association to bargain collectively from government interference. As long as there is no compelling rationale to impose anti-trust — no need to protect the market from being muscled John D. Rockefeller style; as long as there is a fair balance of power — the law may not intervene.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.
In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.
“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said.
. Skeptics, like Christy, say the other side is afraid the method will expose the weakness of the supposed “consensus” on global warming.
“My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be—the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”
“In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.”
Consensus scientists say peer review works just fine, but skeptics point out the problems with climate models and many of their predictions. In fact, many articles have been written about the problems with scientific journals and peer review.
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says peer review has become politicized, where “gatekeeping” plays a role in who gets published and who doesn’t. Skeptics usually get the wrong end of that deal.