Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Cap & Tax Monster Still Lurking

Before you begin reading this article, note that references have been provided below. What I've written is not mere speculation, but rather analysis generated from studying the issue.
Given the evidence of the lack of appreciable global warming in the last decade, the icecaps having recovered and that there are five times more polar bears than there were in the 1940's, you'd think the climate change argument and climate legislation would have been put aside. Any reasonable person might assume that politicians wouldn't want to appear foolish enough to be duped by these grifters trying to slide this sale through without reading the contract or inspecting the goods.

Despite proof of the input data manipulation, exposed communications that indicate hiding real data, and admissions of inaccurate satellite data, the global warming cult forges on undaunted by these revelations. The University of East Anglia and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that seemed to spearhead Al Gore's charge have little or no credibility in this argument and yet they press forward. Indeed, on April, 26 the U.S. Senate is slated to unveil it's Climate and Clean Energy Jobs bill. That's “Cap and Tax” to the English speaking. Our President says it will, necessarily cause our utility rates to sky rocket. Added to that will be the increased cost of everything from coffee to condos resulting from energy use.
Ostensibly ( with great emphasis ) this is all to reduce greenhouse emissions and save our planet. You know better than that and, of course, these snake oil peddlers don't believe that either.

A coalition of “environmental groups” consisting mostly of social change minded people released a “Climate Action Report” April, 7th, 2010 which is, reportedly, to be submitted to the United Nations as United States policy. Who elected them? In reviewing sixty some odd people composing this group I found no climate scientists nor any scientists at all. I did, however, find the Center for American Progress, the Apollo Alliance and activists of every imaginable social change ilk. There are environmental, ethnic, green jobs, race relations, economics, health care, health insurance, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, poverty, religion, women's rights, education, labor unions, globalization and bioethics represented among those offering this action report. Oh yes, and there is Van Jones and John Podesta as well. The problem is, that these groups don't represent fact or science or the majority of America, which should be driving the argument.

Their report says "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced ... Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

This, of course, is hotly disputed by a large portion of the scientific community.

It goes on to say “Without action to stop them, climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions will rise over 8,000 megatonnes by mid-century, the draft said. By adopting measures detailed in a bill passed last year by the U.S. House of Representatives, these emissions will drop beneath 2,000 megatonnes. They're now about 6,500 megatonnes. The United Nations measures greenhouse gas emissions in megatonnes, or million metric tons.”

Facts repudiating their report are easily found in dozens of real scientific reports on the internet. Anyone who has a sincere interest in “saving the planet” would research just a little and discover that there is something seriously wrong with the propaganda of the global warming and climate change campaigns.
The air we breathe has only 0.039% carbon dioxide. That is considered only a trace gas. We can work with 0.5% albeit, breathlessly. Even if their projected additions of carbon dioxide were to occur, human beings would not be effected to any large degree. Beyond that, it has been shown that plant life would increase consuming a good deal of the added carbon dioxide.

If there is any “consensus” in the scientific community on climate change, it leans more toward the eccentricities of Earth's orbit and the inconsistency of heat radiating from the Sun being the overriding causes of any warming.

There is, of course, a very compelling argument for being good stewards of the our Earth. There is not, however, any compelling cause to spend untold billions and legislating human behavior to fix something over which we have very little control. It is either monumentally arrogant or profoundly ignorant to think we puny humans can lord it over nature and wrestle it into submission.

31,486 actual scientists (9,029 of whom have earned a Phd,) generated and signed a petition rejecting the hyperbole of “global warming”.
The cover letter reads as follows.

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Is global warming happening? From my research, I believe it is. Is it likely to be catastrophic? Even with all the hyperbole I had to slug through I became less and less convinced that humans would notice much difference. Is there any reason to spend great gobs of money to fix it? Nope, seems like such an ambitious and costly effort mounted by governments would barely make any measurable change in the atmosphere. The cost in the human condition, however, would probably be epic. I, personally believe that science and technology will take care of this without government intervention in due course.

To be fair, I did search out many references to other scientists who supported the global warming thesis but found too many favoring questionable data or connected to questionable agendas. In any case there were far fewer scientists and climate experts in agreement with the man made and man fixable thesis. (about 1 out of 3) These scientist's solutions are a little too vague in what actual effect their methods of reducing greenhouse gases might entail or what unexpected consequences might result if implemented. If all this money is required to put their solutions into effect, the public deserves a rock solid answer to all those types of questions. Don't you think we ought to have a look at the machine and kick the tires before we buy it? Even the renowned M.I.T.'s frequently asked questions list has answers that are out of date with current data that is reported elsewhere. All in all I agree with the greater number of reputable scientists who characterize this climate change effort as implausible and even absurd.

The question arises; why haven't more people heard about these things on television or in print? Isn't it an important subject to address while the senate is considering passage of legislation? Why wouldn't they want the public to be better informed so they are better able form a more balanced opinion about this climate stuff? Well, you'd have to surmise that the media wants you to reflect their opinion rather than having one of your own. Do they have a stake in the outcome? You bet. Rather, the owners of some media outlets stand to benefit hugely. I wonder if Wall Street is somehow involved.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm going to listen to the real scientists with solid science as their main agenda before I put any faith in a politician or media personality. And that goes double for a politician (past or present ) who has something to gain from passing legislation to spend taxpayer dollars. Many are salivating over the billions to be made in “Green” industries or carbon credit trading. I'm not a global warming “denier”, as they like to vilify. Rather, I am a “rejecter” of government intervention into obviously questionable science and technology.

The unfortunate fact is that the people promoting this climate argument from positions of power are out to get your money and subjugate as much of the population as possible in the process. Yeah, money, power and folks who want to control your behavior, who'd-a-thunk-it? It's an ugly specter masquerading as a “good cause that anyone should gladly embrace.”

How will history judge this gullible generation? If, indeed, human beings continue to get smarter as we evolve, (a premise that I frequently question) will future history depict us as we now view the uneducated, cultish and superstitious people of the 13th century? Are we the same kind of people who believe whatever the leadership puts before us as fact, rushing mindlessly about, enthusiastically regurgitating the beliefs of the current cult master without independent thought? I believe people are much smarter than that, but massively uninformed due to a lack of interest in the news that may have a major impact on their lives. This leads them to be misinformed by the loudest voices heard in the most strategic placement in order to indoctrinate.

I suppose the real question here is, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue saying “There's nothing we can do about it” or “They're going to do whatever they want, it doesn't matter what I say”. Or, will you join others in our awakening populous to stop the erosion of our liberties and confiscation of your earnings. Will you make some phone calls, write some e-mails or plop down and grab the TV remote?
Center for American Progress intergovernment panel on climate change Lord Monckton Video

Thursday, April 8, 2010


There are probably quite a few of the 4,266 students in Cahokia School District 187 near East St. Louis Illinois who could teach the teachers about economics.

The Illinois Federation of Teachers Union, despite the recent and numerous reports of how well they are being paid compared to the poor performance of their students, is threatening a strike. Obviously the teachers are not up to speed on our devastated economy and how the public view them these days. Current events must not be anywhere in their curriculum

The school district offered them 2.25%. The union asked for 4%. The school district pointed out that it is $5.3 million in debt and cannot go any further.
The union then "graciously" reduced their demand to 3.5% and said that the district must want us to strike if they don't accept.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I hold good teachers in the highest regard. All considered ,however, the union seems to have no leg to stand on in this case. It seems entirely ridiculous for them to be making any further demands since a raise was offered in the beginning.

Some give and take is in order here. Give us better performance of teachers and student alike and then we'll talk.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

and THE “101” RULE

As one who watches the news with remote in hand, flipping back and forth trying to catch all takes on the news of the day, I find one thing glaringly evident. The once highly regarded “Fourth Estate” has something other than the public trust foremost on their agenda. They are clearly serving another master.
The hubris of the Main Stream Media is that they display such umbrage at losing control of the narrative to other sources like the internet, upstart journalists or other media outlets. They seem completely offended that the public doesn't swallow their representation of a given story without any further question. When actual facts come to light, countering their version of a story, their lack of professionalism is unmasked. Unfortunately for the public, accusations, finger pointing and even name calling ensue.
Those other sources are merely providing answers to questions that the majority of curious people want to know. How could that possibly be an affront to any journalist who is doing their best to ferret out relevant stories of the public interest and report on them objectively? The answer, of course, is that an opposing view has been put out there that may somehow undermine their integrity. They know that the opposing slant has some traction and they are either embarrassed or upset that their own personal view point has come into question. It may be their bosses personal view point.
First, and perhaps most important, is that it is not a journalist's job to control the message. We rightfully, expect an in-depth coverage of relevant facts observed from all sides. Editorials and opinion pieces are just that, but still need to be thorough.
I believe that most people who actually pay attention to the news realize that those in the MSM are gaming us. When we see one thing but it is being repeatedly and fervently reported to us as something else, we feel betrayed and distanced from those sources. The public is more informed now and can see when the are facts distorted, manipulated and omitted so that what is presented to us is merely their preconceived notion of what they believe we should know. They have, therefore lost the “public trust” to a large degree along with our respect. You can only tell people not to believe their lying eyes for so long before the the game is over.
Sadly, another effect of “news” people behaving as they have, is that too many in the public are ignoring the news all together. The overwhelming response when I ask someone what news channels they watch is “I don't watch the news” and “you can't believe anything they say.” That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for those who have the crucial responsibility of keeping the public informed.
Another sore point is the interminable obsession with attacking people. Coming out against a policy, brand of politics or point of view is certainly fair game but only in the opinion pieces. Personal attacks are not acceptable anywhere in the news media. We were taught that saying someone did something stupid was not the same thing as calling the person stupid. Aside from that, the MSM folks frequently just sound like they're whining to me. Ask my kids what I think about whiners.
The James O'Keeffe / ACORN story was just about the last straw for me. Rather than taking up the story and making an effort to completely report it, we heard whining about O'Keeffe and he became a story. Even with reports of ACORN's illegal activities and shady behavior for a decade, the MSM showed little interest in pursuing the obvious real story.
There is one prominent investigative journalist that really caught my attention when I first heard him. Early on I could see him following in the footsteps of some of the great news personalities. He even landed his own show. I saw him gradually succumb to what ever dark force it is that saps the greatness out of people like him. Then I finally lost all respect for him after he feebly reported on the O'Keeffe / ACORN story. I have to wonder what is so important to him that he would carelessly toss away all of his integrity and the respect he had once earned.
It was about this time that I thought it might be a good idea to educate myself on the Journalist's Creed and Journalism Code of Ethics. You know, kind of an abbreviated Journalism “101”. Maybe I was wrong about journalism all this time and it really was supposed to be this free-for-all, trading punches sort of spectacle we are exposed to these days. Perhaps I was just expecting way too much of these media personalities. Turns out though, I was right in the first place.
It should give journalist's pause that, when I Googled “journalist's” the first two items on the drop down list were journalist's creed and journalist's code of ethics. That should tell you that there are a whole lot of us out here wondering about the same kind of things that I am writing about here.
The second line of the Journalist's Creed reads: “I believe the public journal is a public trust, that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust”. Who then, are these journalist's paying service to instead of the public? I would recommend reading the creed and code of ethics to all of you reading this piece.
On now to my “101” Rule.
I have an example of the lesson to be learned here. The rule says: “Whatever you learn in the “101” class are most important things you need to know in that field.”
My favorite true story that I use to illustrate the rule is about a company where I once worked. The owner of the company gave over control to his intelligent, good looking and charismatic son who was freshly graduated with an MBA. The son, who was full of the newest cutting edge knowledge of the day began enthusiastically implementing this knowledge. He set out aggressively to change the way business was done with the latest theories of business management. This successful 100 year old establishment was “transformed” by new technology, new accounting practices and new sales tactics. As you may have guessed, within a couple of years the company failed. Employees lost their jobs, customers lost their trusted source of materials and the community suffered. All of this for one basic reason; the son had become too enthralled with the latter years of his education and had forgotten Business “101”. He had also forgotten Marketing “101” because he was influenced more by the instructors and college friends who surrounded him than the market the business had served. Does any of this sound familiar?
To journalist's I offer this advise; go back to Journalism “101”, Ethics “101”, Marketing “101”.
The Main Stream Media may be populated with very intelligent people. You may be respected within that closed community of media types and beltway thinkers. You may even win awards for your work. What good is all of that without the respect of the public?
There is a wisdom in the masses that you are missing and must tap in order to be a proper representative of the Fourth Estate. It is a far too important time in history for the media to misunderstand these responsibilities.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010