Monday, November 23, 2009

The Government Health Care Makes to the Floor

Last Saturday in a 60 (D) to 39 (R) vote, the US Senate in a rush to get a nationalized health care billed passed has moved their version of health care reform on to the floor of the US Senate for "debate", as they define it. These days debate mostly entails excluding opposing opinion. And certainly allowing no GOP amendments.

It was illuminating to see how blatant the Democrats are with their bribes and hypocracy, though. U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) received only $300 Million for her state (being called the Louisiana Purchase) for her vote. she'll vote for anything and is not afraid to brag about it. Another senator, one who railed against the public option, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), has been rolled it on as well. She made a wonderful speech in opposition to the public option and insisted she would not vote for a bill that included it, but voted to allow the bill with a public option still in it to go forward.

I honestly do not know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Fraudulent Green Revisited

In my previous post (Fraudulent Green, August 2009) I made the case that CO2 is not the end of times monster that the leaders, worshipers and profiteers of the green agenda would have us believe. Now there is more information to encourage doubt about man made, or anthropogenic, climate change. Newly released ERBE satellite data analysis, exposed IPCC/CRU communications, Al Gore displaying his expansive knowledge of the Earth, and Copenhagen extravagances, add to the myth of man made global warming.

On August 26th of this year a report published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen reveals CO2's the realistic effect on climate change. 15 years of satellite data indicates that more heat was radiated back out into space as is radiated into Earth's atmosphere. If that is true, how could the “greenhouse gas”, CO2, be warming the place up? Especially when it’s been cooling off for the last 11 years (Check it out).

Recently exposed emails between some of the high up muckety-mucks at the CRU, at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, England, and greenies from Pennsylvania State University show a concerted effort to maintain a man made climate change as a problem and massage the story line to maintain their global disaster scenario. They have been described as "gatekeepers" on global warming information. In the Washington Times editorial, "Hiding evidence of global cooling", they expose Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University for willfully altering information and are accused of destroying original raw data to prevent any peer review of their "science".

Update: It seems Prof. Jones has stepped down while an investigation goes forward.

Also, in researching for any peer reviewed studies on climate change, I came across this gem.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, by Naomi Oreskes (Science, 3 December 2004). It is an article in Science Magazine posted online and it starts out discussing peer reviewed, or refereed, climate studies. She says,
"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
And,
"In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."
And,
" Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) "
This called "Argument from authority" or "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy that relies on the perceived knowledge of those commenting on a subject that it must be true.

(an aside: This reminds me of watching the President's economic advisers on Meet the Press. They are the authority on economics as demonstrated by their degrees and awards, and yet not a single one of them has had any practical experience in real world economics. They are academics. Just watch the economic policies that come out of this bunch and its effects on the economy for a general idea of how these things may work.)

On first blush, one might think the thousands of scientists who are in agreement had conducted scientific reviews before they came to their conclusion. Ms. Oreskes refers to 928 peer reviewed climate change studies as proof of the science's validity. But she does not mention whether any had access to any raw data. Data that the exposed IPCC/CRU communications indicate may have been destroyed. The author cites the IPCC as the source of the data. And of course we know that the IPCC gets data from Climate Research Unit (CRU).

I problem I see is the claim (from the recently published CRU communications) that they have resisted releasing years of "raw data" and reports are circulating that the good people at CRU have destroyed that data.

So I ask;
How can a scientific conclusion be peer reviewed if the peers doing the reviewing do not have access to the raw data?
In a sane world, just these would be the end of the story for the entire green movement. But, somehow, I doubt that will happen. Many are invested in green as it has become a trendy new-age guiltist religion. We only need listen to its oracle, Al Gore, and his disdainful looks down his nose if someone should be so blasphemous as to challenge his holy word. And as I've mentioned, it's a green cash cow.

Update: They opened the Copenhagen Climate summit with a nice video...



They aren't trying to scare people are they??

I suppose the must use scare tactics to gain support from the great masses of non-scientists who they need to implement their agenda. After all you and I should not be riding around in SUVs, pick up trucks or limousines. And far too many people are flying around in private jets when commercial air is much more cost efficient. The delegates employed "1,200 limos, 140 private planes" (UK Telegraph). And don't forget the "caviar wedges".

Update: Noted suedo-scientist and Nobel Laureate, former VP Al Gore Jr. reveals why he does not accept offers to debate climate change with challengers on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brian. While discussing geothermal energy, Mr. Gore states that,
"People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot..."
OK, Big Al. I understand that you believe that human beings are causing this planet's temperature to rise, but is it really matching the temperature of our Sun? Maybe Al should do a little more research on his pet moneymaker before he ruins it for all the green weenies.

The green agenda defined: A cabal of self-serving self-styled intellectual elitists successfully acquiring fame, power and wealth, at the expense of all others and most especially, from the USA. Their methods include fear mongering, misinformation, exaggerations, falsified reports, the exclusion of relevant data concerning Earth's environmental systems and the steadfast refusal to debate anyone on their so called science. Climate change has had many an entrepreneur take up cause in the name of politically correct profit. It is now a $120 Billion per year industry according to an article on CNN.

Short rant:
These are the people who tell you that capitalism makes your world unfair and preach about stopping "Wall Street greed", while using fear to gain support for their own capitalistic schemes (such as the Chicago Climate Exchange). I fail to understand why educated adult Americans continue to support these people.
End of Rant.

More information for skeptics like me.
Climate Change, NIPCC
Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill, by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D. Web Memo #2504
Climategate: An Opportunity to Stop and Think, by Joseph Bast
EPA Finds That Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public, By Coral Davenport, Mon Dec 7, 2:14 pm ET
The Climategate Fiasco by Steven Novella, Dec 07 2009

Imagration: Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal

Many cities in the United States of America are in direct violation of their own oaths of office when they declare their city to be so-called "sanctuary cities". They have adopted ordinances that prevent their police and other city employees from inquiring about a person's immigration status.

According to Wikipedia, there 31 sanctuary cities in the USA. Some of these cities
"are Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine."
So, how can this be a violation the law?

ANS: The mayors of all cities in this country and all states sign on to the US Constitution and in their oath of office, they proclaim it.

Oaths of office read ( in part):
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States"
Using California's Oath of office it goes on to say,
"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing."
Each and every police officer, officer of the court, and most especially these mayors, have sworn, or affirmed, to uphold the law of the United States. Under the United States law, entering the country without documentation and without permission is illegal. It is ilegal all of the time and everywhere within our borders and in our embassies in other countries.

So, how is it that they can declare their cites "sanctuary cities" in violation of their oath and claim any real or moral authority? No one calls them on it.

I have to wonder sometimes what would have happened if I violated the oaths I took when I enlisted in the US Army. No, I don't wonder, I know exactly what would happen. Fort Leavenworth would happen.

These violations of the law continue today with virtually no one taking these elected public officials to task for violating their oath of office. Political correctness rules these days and has much more weight than honor, self respect and morality. How can any public official insist that anyone believe them when they are perfectly happy to violate their word and the law.

Mayor Newsom of San Francisco has recently acquired some common sense, for which he is paying, moved away from his previous position of supporting sanctuaries due to the murderous acts of Edwin Ramos, who is an illegal alien from EL Salvador and member of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13, a street gang). His city council still insists on keeping the policy and voted to keep it.