Man-made Global Warming in Doubt

Below are portions of one of those hacked emails from Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The email dated October 1996 is from an environmental writer Fred Pearce to climate researcher Briffa Keith: 

For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable "sign" of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity. The leading figures of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), claim that, in all probability, they have seen it. Last summer [ed: 1996], the IPCC's scientific working group, chaired by former UK Meteorological Office boss Sir John Houghton, concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". But it is like the "balance of evidence" suggesting BSE causes CJD. The judgment is far from "beyond reasonable doubt". The case remains "not proven".

Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced "greenhouse effect" of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the "signal" of human influence.

The models' error was not, perhaps, too surprising. As Barnett points out, they do not include vital "forcing" mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that "the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world". If they are they "might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case."

Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2009):

In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions -- the major cause of global warming -- cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses [my italics] or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. [read more]

I like the word "provocative." Any theory I guess that questions global warming or as it is called now climate change ideology is heresy. I serious doubt CO₂ emissions are the major cause of global warming. My bet is still on that yellow star in the sky called the sun.

Then the author of the article has to mention the "global warming deniers" using the scientist's theory for their own purposes. Again, I guess you can't question science anymore? Science is about finding the truth. If you can't question a scientist's methodology or theory to find a kernel of truth then you don't have science anymore. You have a cult.

More on the House Health Care Bill

Section 552 says there will be an excise tax of 2.5% on medical devices. Yea, another tax. This country needs another tax like it needs another "stimulus" bill.

The bill requires the employer to give his/her name, date, and employer identification number to the following gov't people: the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury. Also, the employee has to give his/her name, address, and TIN to those same gov't people. What the social security number isn't good enough for id purposes? (See Sect. 412 (a)(3))

The employee has 30 days to choose if (s)he wants socialized medicine or his employer's private health plan. No other choice. If the employee does not make a choice then the employer chooses the one with the lesser premium. (Sect. 412 (c)(1) & (2)) If the employer does not pick a plan for the employee then he is fined $100 a day until he does. (Sect. 806)

If an employer has an annual payroll of more than $750,000 then he has to contribute 8% of the average wages of his employees. Otherwise, if the employer has an annual payroll of less $500,000 annual payroll he does not have to contribute anything. In between the two amounts is a progressive rate up to 6%. (Sect. 413)

If the Commissioner thinks you are not covered properly then you have to pay 2.5% of your gross income. (Sect. 59B)

ObamaCare and Individual Differences

In any bureaucracy, individual differences are for the most part ignored. This is done for efficiency and so that every one is treated the same way. People are classified according to what group you are in. Socialized medicine is no different. Even worse, because the bigger the bureaucracy the more individual differences are ignored.

For example, let's say a person has a deadly genetic defect that runs in his/her family. This genetic defect causes an aggressive form of stomach cancer. First, the person has to be screened for the mutant gene. Then if the person has the mutant gene has to have surgery done or medication has to be given. In socialized medicine the person has to wait to be screened if the test exists. The wait could kill the person if (s)he gets the cancer. If (s)he is lucky to be screened then (s)he would have to wait for the operation or drug if she is found positive for the gene.

What could be worse is if the system decides the person is not worth the screening because the mutant gene is really rare.

When you go see your private doctor (s)he can look at your individual differences. Then make a diagnose and a prescription that fits closely to your individual bodily make-up. The examining and diagnosing can take time especially if the medical condition is unknown or complex to the doctor. The prescription can even take time if there are more than one option for the patient and the options are about equal. The patient would have to decide what to do. Under socialized medicine examining and diagnosing time is not under the doctor's control and prescription option would not be under the patient's control.

Obama's Plan for Gov't Takeover of Banks

The following steps below are taken from Dick Morris & Eileen McGann's book Catastrophe:

1. Get all banks and financial institutions to take TARP money.
2. Even if they want to give the money back, don't let them.
3. Because they're getting government money, make them obey federal regulations.
4. Make all banks pass a "stress test," allegedly to assure their financial solvency. 
5. After eliminating the stress test, make banks raise more capital, again, supposedly to assure solvency.
6. When the banks can't raise more capital by selling more stock, make them swap the preferred stock they gave the gov't in return for TARP money for common stock. This exchange lets them wipe the debt to the gov't off their balance sheets, but it gives the feds stock that entitles them to vote on company management (which preferred stock does not).
7. Use the voting power of the common stock to dictate how to run the banks.
8. Use the leverage of the banks to control the economy.

Like Dick Morris says and I agree these are steps to socialism. Any bank or financial institution that takes TARP money is a fool. They are asking to be a puppet. But I can understand if they are desperate. After all they are "too big to fail" or so we are told. Maybe that is the plan. Set up a situation (ie oppressive regulations) where a big corporations (eg Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc.) have a hard time succeeding economically. Once they start failing, declare them "too big to fail." Then offer them a "TARP" deal. Then follow steps 2) through 8) above. Also, if you make the corporations enemy of the people then you can get away with the oppressive regulations and say you are doing it for the "good" of the country. 

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal 'carbon allowance'

From Telegraph.co.UK (Nov. 9):

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalized if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. [read more]

This global warming or climate change (whatever it is called now) mania is way out of control. God help America if it comes here. I agree with the economist Ruth Lea in the article this definitely is Orwellian. 

Storm Chasing with a Horse and Buggy

According to the National Association of Storm Chasers and Spotters website the first storm chaser was U.S. Weather Bureau climatologist Isaac Cline. In 1900 he road a horse and buggy down a Galveston, Texas beach as he nervously observed the increasing surf and winds. He was trying to spot a hurricane. 

So, I started thinking. How good would a horse and buggy be chasing tornadoes? I would think it would not be very effective. 

First, the horses would be spooked and probably would not be willing to chase after a huge swirling cloud of wind. Chasing tornadoes is not natural behavior for horses--or for people either for that matter. But somebody's gotta do it. I don't think a person could train horses to chase a tornado. They would just look at the trainer and think he's plain crazy. 

Second, the horses, the buggy, and even the storm chasers could be hurt. Not just from being sucked up by the twister (the buggy would probably weigh less than an average car), but being hit by flying debris like rocks, limbs, cows (I refer the reader to the Twister movie. The best tornado movie second to The Wizard of Oz. Got to love the tornado footage in the beginning of that movie), and chickens. Not too mention any hail knocking storm chasers and horses on the head. Ouch! Those suckers can get quite large. 

Finally, a horse and buggy just can't go as fast (about 8 - 10 mph) as a car. Plus, it cannot back up if a tornado comes right toward a person. The storm chasers would have to get out of the buggy, unharness the horses so they can escape (you wouldn't want them to be sucked up by the tornado would you?), and run for their lives. 

The above reasons is probably why storm chasing did not really get started in the 1950's. The cars were faster than the horse and buggy. Plus, they offer protection. I suppose they could have chase storms in the 1930's with the first cars but they would have been slower than the cars in the 50s. But with the cars in the 30's, a person did not have to worry too much about hail damage. The cars were mostly metal. Although, you did have to crank them up in front. 

The Fort Hood Attack

I agree with what Col. Ralph Peters said in his New York Post column that this was a terrorist attack. Not just someone who had a breakdown or went crazy. The attack was definitely not caused by combat stress reaction. The attacker never was in combat. That diagnoses is just plain stupid. Look at the facts we have now. Hasan yelled out "God is great" in Arabic when he shot those soldiers. He said was Muslim first, then American. He called homicide bombers heroic on his Facebook page. Getting rid of his personal possessions and going to a strip joint too suggested an attack of some sort. Those two actions were also done by the 9/11 terrorists. The 9/11 terrorists were preparing to get their virgins and I believe so was this militant Jihadist. He thought he was going to die. Add to this fact he tried to contact Al Qaeda. It does not matter if they did not reply. Plus, on his business card he put the initials "SOA." SOA stands for Soldier of Allah. This attack is not related to Islam? Really?

This terrorism should never had happened. Thanks to the Left the military has become a political correct mess (the terms "War on Terror" are not allowed in military documents anymore. Geez!). Diversity is one thing, but allowing someone who is so dangerous is another. You DO NOT screw around with the military. It is not a social experiment. These brave soldiers put their lives on the line to defend this country. Getting shot at in battle is one thing. Getting shot at by a fellow soldier stateside is another thing all together.

To prevent this from ever happening again a thorough background check should be done on every Muslim in all branches of the military not just the Army. Any militant Jihadist should be kicked out. The POTUS Barack Obama could issue this directive. He is the commander-in-chief of the military. The question is would he do it. My guess is no. Would this directive be profiling? Possibly. Is this racism? No. It's a security measure. You want to know something. Any Muslim who is a militant Jihadist probably wouldn't care if was kicked out. He might miss the money though. 

H.R. 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act)

I have read the 1990 pages bill and here is what I learned not in any particular order with comments by me. Yes, my brain is still intact from reading the bill. It did not melt. All italics are mine.

• SEC. 330. ENROLLMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Members of Congress may enroll in the public health insurance option. Why is the section necessary? I mean if the bill so good why would any member of Congress not enroll in the bill? Also, notice the executive and the judicial arms of the gov't are not included in this section. One undeniable fact of life is the powers-that-be always take of themselves.

• INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.If the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. Reducing benefits and increasing premiums sounds like an insurance company to me. As for waiting lists, that sounds like the Canadian health care system.

• CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW. The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if---(B) the law does not limit attorneys fees or impose caps on damages. That should make the personal injury lawyers happy. No wonder you don't hear them protesting.

• SEC. 2537. MEDICAL-LEGAL PARTNERSHIPS. (1) awarding grants to, and entering into contracts with, medical-legal partnerships to assist patients and their families to navigate health-related programs and activities. Another bone to the lawyers. I guess the socialized health care will be so complex the everyday person can't understand it.

• There are a bunch of offices such as the OFFICE OF WOMEN’S HEALTH (no office of men's health?), and the OFFICE OF INDIAN MEN’S HEALTH. There is a whole section dedicated to Indians. No offense to Indians but why are they singled out?

• There is a Health Choices Commissioner. Think Health Czar.

• Employers are supposed to supply health info to their employees and encourage health screenings. Employers cannot mandate their employees to participate in the "health education" pgm but can entice them as long as it does not interfere with the Health Care Act. As it says in the bill "such reward is not tied to the premium or cost-sharing of the individual under the health benefits plan." The screening results are kept confidential. That is you know, the screener knows, and the Secretary (read the gov't) knows about your results.

• SEC. 223. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Nine members who are not members of the gov't who are appointed by the President. Nine members who are not members of the gov't who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States. Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint. Each member serves a term of three years. On this committee are very experts in the health, insurance, and business community. There are even experts in "racial and ethnic disparities." Whatever that is.

• There are two registries: The National Medical Device Registry and the National Registry for Effective Programs.

• There are regulations on restaurants and vending machines (see Sec. 2572).

• The payments for the health care pgm are deducted automatically from your paycheck. (See page 1577 line 23)

• Retiree Reserve Trust Fund

All in all this bill is one bureaucratic mess with a crap load of subsidies. If you want to know how bureaucracies work you can read Moore's Laws of Bureaucracy. It's very interesting and enlightening reading.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 14

• I believe private citizens should buy their own health insurance just they do for auto and life insurance. It's not the responsibility of the gov't or for that matter your employer.
• You never compromise with irrational people, stubborn people, and evil people.
• Experimenting with the occult especially Ouija boards and séances is like randomly picking out strangers in a phone book to call. You may get a nice decent person or or may get a psychopath with caller id. You never know.
• A person without a conscience is like an automobile without breaks. Sooner or later he/she will go out of control and hurt him/herself or someone else.
• What's worse than fainting goats would be fainting horses or cows. They could get hurt or land on someone or a smaller animal. A fainting hamster would be weird albeit fun to have.
• I think there should be a separation between business and gov't like there supposedly a separation between church and state that the Left keeps bringing up.
• I sometimes believe the motto of the Left (especially the far Left) is: See no truth, hear no truth,...
• Conservative Derangement Syndrome: (noun) The irrational obsessive hatred of Conservatives by the Left. Derives from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
• Either Obama did not know about his radical appointees & did not vet them, or he knew about them being radical and agreed with their philosophy. There are really no other options. If I had to choose which option was Obama's mindset, I choose the latter one. Obama said if you want to know what he believes look at the people who surround him.
• Under ObamaCare I wonder how living wills and Do Not Resuscitates (DNRs) will be treated. Will living wills be invalid especially the Five Wishes you want your doctor and family to know? How about DNRs? Will everyone be required to have a DNR especially if you are elderly?

Are the Left Control Freaks?

Below is the list of traits of control freaks taken from an ehow.com article. The question is how close do these traits fit the Left.

1. You insist on running the show and calling all the shots. Definitely true. The Democrats in Congress have shut out the Republicans from any input in any bill. LBJ ran the Vietnam war in this manner.

2. You are skilled at manipulation and intimidation, and work extremely hard to keep everyone and everything around you in check. This one fits too. Obama has been trying to intimidate Fox News and now the US Chamber of Commerce. He has demonized the insurance business. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts have been demonized by the Left. Big Labor wants the card check legislation. Black conservatives get persecuted by black liberals. The drive-by-media or what I call the Obama fan club made fun of people just protesting ObamaCare. As for manipulation, majority of the Left in Congress are trial-lawyers. Trial lawyers know how to manipulate language to try to get the jury to vote their way. Then there is Obama with all the doctors wearing white coats in the Rose Garden.

3. Wise in your own eyes, you believe that your wisdom and advice is far better than that of everyone else you meet, and you're always prepared to dispense it freely. In other words, arrogance. Obama definitely is arrogant as are most of the Left. He and the Left think that all government programs are good and if you don't want them then you just don't know what's good for you. Like some Leftist said on a talk show about ObamaCare "just drag the people to it."

4. Only your input is valid. You enjoy expressing your opinion in conversations and meetings, but hate it when other people follow suit. This follows from trait three. Arrogant people only love their opinions. They don't care about other people's opinions because other people are beneath them. Look at the politicians from the Left who preach ObamaCare at town hall meetings. They don't want the participants to ask questions. Just to listen to them.

5. You discourage the input and feedback of others, and feel threatened by it. The Left feel threatened by input and feedback because they are scared that the other people's input will be better than their input. They really don't want people to criticize their pgms because they fear that people might discover their gov't pgms aren't that good and sometimes are just plain crap. If you know in your heart and mind that your opinion is right or the truth then you don't have to force people to accept it. You just have to persuade them that it is right. Coercion and trickery only come from the insecure.

6. Instead of using your imagination to come up with creative solutions to problems, you spend more time daydreaming about the worst that could happen. Yea, the Left tend to be pessimistic. Global Warming is going to flood and burn up the earth. Everything is a crisis with the Left.

There are ten traits in all of a control freak, so it looks like the Left fits most of these traits I listed.