M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
As soon as you start attempting to measure environmental issues and “happiness”, you are off into a swamp of subjectivity.
We do know that air pollution in the United States peaked in 1967 and has dramatically improved ever since. But you would be hard pressed to find a chart or graph of that metric, because it is politically incorrect.
We do know that the United States ranking in school children’s math skills has deteriorated from #1 a few years ago to #27 now, although that chart or graph is difficult to locate. Not politically correct. It flies in the face of dramatically increased educational spending.
We do know that metrics of health are deceptive because different countries measure different things. The United States, despite the increase in abortions since Roe v. Wade, still makes a huge effort to save the lives of prematurely born babies. Nevertheless, even though we fail a lot [and that shows up in the infant mortality data] and even though the efforts are costly, we do it. And in the statistics, we do not get rewarded for our efforts.
During the debate over nationalized healthcare, there were exhibits after exhibits on the enormous waiting periods under nationalized healthcare to see specialists. And how the United States was/is used as a relief source for, for example, patients from Canada who could get prompt care for difficult cases … there ARE some curious metrics, such as the large number of CatScan machines in the United States. No waiting.
So, you propose some interesting metrics, but it’s all non-standard and non-uniform.
We’re finding so many abuses of science in which fraudulent data is used routinely. For example, the temperature data used in the global warming models were all faked data. When audits were performed, it was found that the alleged field data was five degrees higher than actual, so naturally the computer models turned out really bad results. And the alleged scientists even KNEW that … we know it from the more than a thousand East Anglia emails that were collected over ten years and published.
Just the other day, a “scientist” in the Netherlands was found to have faked his entire career’s work of studies. He faked the data and he faked the conclusions. And they were even peer-reviewed.
What you are proposing is just too subjective.
We do know that air pollution in the United States peaked in 1967 and has dramatically improved ever since. But you would be hard pressed to find a chart or graph of that metric, because it is politically incorrect.
We do know that the United States ranking in school children’s math skills has deteriorated from #1 a few years ago to #27 now, although that chart or graph is difficult to locate. Not politically correct. It flies in the face of dramatically increased educational spending.
We do know that metrics of health are deceptive because different countries measure different things. The United States, despite the increase in abortions since Roe v. Wade, still makes a huge effort to save the lives of prematurely born babies. Nevertheless, even though we fail a lot [and that shows up in the infant mortality data] and even though the efforts are costly, we do it. And in the statistics, we do not get rewarded for our efforts.
During the debate over nationalized healthcare, there were exhibits after exhibits on the enormous waiting periods under nationalized healthcare to see specialists. And how the United States was/is used as a relief source for, for example, patients from Canada who could get prompt care for difficult cases … there ARE some curious metrics, such as the large number of CatScan machines in the United States. No waiting.
So, you propose some interesting metrics, but it’s all non-standard and non-uniform.
We’re finding so many abuses of science in which fraudulent data is used routinely. For example, the temperature data used in the global warming models were all faked data. When audits were performed, it was found that the alleged field data was five degrees higher than actual, so naturally the computer models turned out really bad results. And the alleged scientists even KNEW that … we know it from the more than a thousand East Anglia emails that were collected over ten years and published.
Just the other day, a “scientist” in the Netherlands was found to have faked his entire career’s work of studies. He faked the data and he faked the conclusions. And they were even peer-reviewed.
What you are proposing is just too subjective.