Al Gore and his favorite topic...Clim...I mean Capitalism

Al Gore was silent for days after the Hadley e-mails pointing to global warming the scam were leaked out. Fearful that his gig was up, Gore carefully crafted his next message as the fallout from Hadley began. He waited until Thanksgiving to give it a play. Interestingly enough, as Al Gore speaks up for the first time in days, he says nothing about global warming or climate change--nope, it's about responsible long-term capitalism.


Gore with David Blood ask, "Why do investors and business leaders continue to focus on the short-term and ignore the fact that businesses that think long-term end up more competitive and profitable?"


While immediately there are not obvious themes of global climate change in the essay, we know Gore's long-term plans have been to profit from the long-term scare tactics of climate change which are now public record in the Hadley e-mails. His essay is really a what is at stake for Al Gore, who has spent the better part of a decade frauding the world to fulfil his long-term goals of carbon domination similar to the very same practices liberals attack the oil for, even though Gore has made plenty of investments in big oil in his time--remember Occidental? Read More at BBCW

Someone found my site via "Dan Maffei Sucks"

I haven't looked at my analytics in a long time. I figured I'd check them out and see how my new blogging strategy was doing. So far, my hits are about 40% higher than last month. I was looking over the google search words, where I was pleasantly surprised.



That's right! Someone found my site via "Dan Maffei Sucks." Dan Maffei is a local Democrat congressman that I have written about in the past.

That just made my Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Global Warming Hoax and how unscience begets unscience

Hit Tip to Green Hell Blog for the Video


Earlier this week hackers broke into the computers at the Hadley CRU, one of the four institutes feeding data to the UN's IPCC.  The information that was released as a result is playing out its own little doomsday scenario on AGW science's credibility.  A UK Telegraph writer has a great breakdown of some of the more juicy details found in the hacked information, here.  However, while you watch the global warming hoax unravel, make sure to be mindful of how unscience begets more unscience.

What am I talking about?  Long before these emails were released, estimates from AGW scientists simply did not make sense.  Let me give you an example from one of my earlier posts:

The holy Grail of AGW reports, the IPCC, was estimating average global temperatures over the next 100 years, using data from the last 100 years.  Of those temperatures, any rational person would maybe grant that the last 40 years of temperatures were accurate (that's when they started using satellites to measure temperature).  If I were making an economic model with as many points in my forecast as were in my data set, I would be laughed at.  Read more here.

Such problems were annoying, but easily side stepped by the AGW crowd by justifying their unscience with more unscience.  Anyone raising these concerns were shrugged off or labeled crazy.  How scientific of them.  Thus, over the years as criticism mounted over the AGW unscience, AGW scientists were spared the rigorousness of being scientific in exchange for a bully pulpit, a microphone and a chance to play world politics.  

Problems such as the fact that the earth has been much cooler and much hotter regardless of human activity were no obstacles to the unscience of AGW.  Ian Plimer, an Australian scientist and AGW skeptic has often pointed out that in the history of the entire planet, we are in a cool period.  Today, even the most ardent AGW scientist would not disagree that the planet has been cooling for the last 4 years (many others say 10 years).  They shrug.  "Temperatures are not constantly going up, they go up and down, but trend up," the AGW crowd says without a single explanation for the temperature drop.  Does no one see the problem with declaring the issue of rising temperatures settled science even as they have no clue what is causing the receding of temperatures? A problem with a model is a problem that needs an answer according to the scientific method.  Instead, what we got was Al Gore marketing, PR and polar bears.

Instead of dealing with the unscience of their science, they chose more uscience.  Now that the house of cards is falling, don't expect them to fall back to any body of science they've been perfecting for vindication.  That is what I would do if I were using science and not unscience to promote my theory.  I'd show the world my books, my data, and let rational thought prevail.  That is not what will happen here.  It's back to the bully pulpit and unscience for these fakers.  Instead, we are about to experience a rapid expansion of even more unscience.  There will be blame games.  There will be denials.  There will be name calling, cover ups and finger pointing and none of it will have anything to do with science.  As it all unfolds, don't get caught up in the idea that real science is about to parade triumphantly down the street.  What you are about to see is the explosion of unscience.  

Evidence that the Unscience is Exploding

Newsbusters on MSM's blackout of the scandal

More recently exposed unscience

Absorption of CO2 has increased, not deteriorating and deforestation's impact embellished.

How to break the bad health care news to your co-workers

My company recently held meetings to role out the health benefits for 2010.  There was a giant elephant in the room and its name was health care reform.  

HR started a panic when it indicated that they were "closely watching the health care reform legislation."  That led many others to wonder, why "they" were watching the reform.  After all, the reform is only for people without heath care and we, that comprise the 200 million that have insurance, already have insurance.  There is no reason to watch the legislation form…unless…

It was someone in the back row that asked if the company was considering dropping our health care benefits if the health care reform passed.

What was most surprising was the number of people who looked puzzled. I had a chance to speak to several of them after the meeting.

"Why would "our company name redacted" be thinking about dropping our health care coverage if the health care bill is passed?"  One asked.  My first impression was that this person must be a liberal.

I was only too willing to lay out the cold hard truth of the legislation.  "Well, according to the congressional budget office, companies have an incentive to drop coverage since people can go sign up for government health care."

Since we were talking about health care and I have a great deal of knowledge on the symptoms of bad legislation, I decided to give my coworkers their prognosis.

"If they pass the congressional bill, the CBO estimates we have a 1 in 10 chance of losing our plans.  The senate bill has it at 1 in 20."

Their reply?

"Well, I'm sure that they'll fix all that before making it law.  It doesn't make sense passing a bill that would kick people out of their current health insurance."

No, they will pass health care legislation because their ideology is more important than you and yes, it is crazy.

Alas! Someone is finally listening to me!

Via the Washington Examiner

Five months ago, I laid out my confusion regarding the large support from younger generations for Obama's agenda.  There is a huge disconnect from the under thirty crowd regarding what health care reform really means for their generation.  In short, I cannot understand why any rational person, from this generation, would support the Obama agenda.

It looks like the Washington Post has finally caught on:

"Now comes the House-passed health-care "reform" bill that, amazingly, would extract more subsidies from the young. It mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of that for younger Americans. That's much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those age 60 to 64 is four to five times greater than those 18 to 24. So, the young would overpay for insurance that -- under the House bill -- people must buy: Twenty- and thirtysomethings would subsidize premiums for fifty-and sixtysomethings. (Those 65 and over receive Medicare.)"

The article goes on:

"Although premium changes would apply mainly to people using insurance "exchanges," the differences would be substantial. A single person 55 to 64 might save $3,490, estimates an Urban Institute study. By contrast, single people in their 20s and early 30s might pay about $600 to $1,100 more. For the young, the extra cost might be larger, says economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, because the House bill would require them to purchase fairly generous insurance plans rather than cheaper catastrophic coverage that might better suit their needs."

When Obama was asked what the middle class would get from his health care reform he answered, "Peace of mind."  The young missed it, but those words from Obama are, in actuality, a call to serfdom.  Make no mistake, this is serfdom.  In medieval times, a serf would work part of the landowner's property in return for food and protection.  At least the medieval serfs of yore traded their freedom in exchange for something they had needed.  For peace of mind from your philosopher-king, Lord Obama, you will pay dearly for what you don't need, health insurance.  

Did we say 3.5% GDP growth? Oops!

Do remember last month's GDP report showing that the economy grew at 3.5%.  Well, experts are expecting the estimate to be adjusted downward to 2.9%.  This is not unusual.  GDP figures come out every quarter and during off-months the numbers are adjusted.  According to the AP:

"A government report due out Tuesday morning is expected to show that the economy expanded at a pace of 2.9 percent from July through September, according to Wall Street economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters. If they are right, it would mark a slower expansion than the 3.5 percent pace reported a month ago. Most of that rebound reflected federal support for spending on homes and cars.

The main forces behind the expected third-quarter downgrade: commercial construction was weaker, the nation's trade gap was more of a drag, businesses trimmed more of their stockpiles and consumers didn't spend as much.

So, the good news is the economy finally started to grow again, after a record four straight losing quarters. The bad news: The rebound, now and in the months ahead, probably will be lethargic.

Federal Reserve officials and other economists say growth won't be strong enough to quickly drive down the nation's unemployment rate. The nation's current 10.2 percent jobless rate marks only the second time in the post-World War II period that unemployment has topped 10 percent."

It will be interesting to see the revised numbers.  Over the last few quarters, the only component to GDP that was growing was government and as the article pointed out, all the elements that are not government are expected to be revised down.

NY Times discovers that there is a deficit problem!

Big Hat tip to Rob Verdi at The 46

Rob Verdi at The 46 is an excellent news aggregator.  I've followed his site almost since the inception of my own blog and he has tipped me off to numerous breaking news stories, including the most recent Times article.  Rob writes:

Is Obama alone responsible for this, of course not. Has he exacerbated the problems to levels almost unbelievable, heck yeah! as for what next:

"Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today's low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher."  Read more at The 46

Please remember to add Rob's site to your list of pages for research.  I promise you won't be disappointed.