does it take to make a hockey stick? Twelve, apparently. -- J. Hansford
Motion is not progress
"Hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress." ---- Russel Kirk, "The Conservative Mind" 1953
Sharing the poorth
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -Mark Twain (1866)
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
Basic populist government economics
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931- 2005
Which came first, the reality or the representation?
“More and more accustomed to testing reality by image, we will find it hard to retrain ourselves so we may once again test the image by reality. It becomes ever harder to moderate our expectations, to shape expectations after experience, and not vice versa. For too long already we have had the specious power to shape ‘reality.’ How can we rediscover the world of the uncontrived?” --- Daniel Boorstein
1.We're going to have a health care plan 2.Written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, 3.Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, 4.Signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, 5.With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, 6.Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and 7.Financed by a country that's broke.
I told you this was just another corrupt scheme to make rich speculators richer and the rest of us pay the freight. Increases in energy costs is the result of cap and trade. Along with a new industry just as rapacious as oil and gas, just without any real assets.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-considered work. I agree with most of the things that you say here. For example, it does not make sense to me to add another generation of people between 55 and 63 to medicare, when it is bankrupt already. It doesn't make any sense to take away money from medicare, which can't cover the costs now nor reimburse providers in a sustainable manner in order to give coverage (likely equally broke) to millions more people. I also support medicare advantage programs as they provide a choice in many areas of the country that would not have adequate services for the elderly otherwise. If we took people's money with a promise that we would provide a decent program to pay for medical care in the future, then we need to make good on the promise. That includes the medicare "gap" that is not covered in the budget for the current. We need to be honest with our seniors, our medical care providers, and with America's taxpayers as well.
For Medicare Part D, the so-called donut hole, can we not provide a program similar to flexible spending accounts that will help people meet those expenses without penalizing them by treating it like an asset or taxing it like a benefit? This should be something people could fund while they are still working.
I also agree that we should import less expensive drugs. The argument that they are not safe is silly. The drugs we make here aren't safe either, as a large number of recalls, law suits and faulty research results have shown over the last decades.
Most disturbing to me is the politicians once again choosing winners and losers. Which category is your state in?
No doubt I am over-simplifying this but....
The EPA has declared that CO2 is a pollutant. (So is sea water and plastic, but let's not go there.)
While they have not determined how they are going to regulate it, because of their authority (the clean air act), their power is pretty much limited to setting a cap on CO2 production.
There is some debate about whether the clean air act gives them the necessary authority, and so any regulation they come up with will likely be the subject of years of legal maneuvering. The Supreme Court has already determined that the Clean Air Act is broad enough to include greenhouse gasses and that EPA is required to regulate it. This has nothing to do with scientific study, fact or climate fanatic (for or against control) opinion. It is determined based only on the clean air statute.
The House proposal is known as cap and trade. Trade in this context means trade for money. The EPA proposal would be cap and penalize. Between the two, I think cap by itself is a fairer action. But then, congress would not be calling the shots and we know how they feel about that. In the end, the government is going to get a lot of money from industries that exceed their CO2 limits.
First of all, scientific theory is not proven through a ballot. It is proven through empirical processes. It is not settled by what could happen until it really happens. And even then, a better model may come along to explain what happened.
13 reasons and counting for questioning Al Gore and company. (Not counting all of the political and financial motivations.)
1) The climate changes all on its own. This can be shown with data - lots of data.
2) CO2 (carbon dioxide) is emitted by all animals and is food for plants. It is not a bad thing anymore than oxygen is. (Oxygen is actually a bad thing - it causes most things to oxidize or burn. That is a destructive process, but it does release energy, which is why we use it to live.)
3) CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere. Nitrogen is by far the most prevalent gas. Depending on which parts of the atmosphere you want to include, nitrogen plus oxygen represent 99% of the atmosphere. Water vapor and argon are next, making up most of the last 1%. CO2 represents less than .03% or .0003 or 3 parts per 10,000.
4) CO2 concentrations go up and down for natural reasons like volcanos. Volcanos, the director of Goddard Space Center says, produce the most CO2 of anything. Since plant life contributes a lot to the reduction in CO2, why not blame plants? Those bad plants just haven't been busy enough, time for some genetic engineering. Of course cutting down trees doesn't help the situation, but most plant life is oceanic.
5) How many measurements does it take to find the difference that man makes in that .03%? Statistically, way more than we have available. If CO2 is such a small component, think how serious a minor error in the measuring equipment would make. Let's say I am measuring the atmospheric content and I make a .001% error (pretty small error). If that error is in measuring CO2, whoa, that's like plus or minus 1/3! Like um, the temperature is 100 plus or minus 33 degrees. Quite a variation. I hope a pigeon didn't sneeze on your probe.
6) The period in which actual temperature measurements are available starts in 1850. Everything that went on before is conjecture. And as the now revealed hoax shows, if the conjecture did not fit the desired result, they simply changed the basis for conjecture until it did. That conjecture is consistent with the desired outcome until about 1980. After that, it no longer supports the predetermined conclusion. So, they just stop using it and substitute real temperature data instead. And when real temperature data doesn't support the predetermined conclusion (which it doesn't), then they fake it some more.