Thursday, April 30, 2009
Most Important F-Word Is Family, Court Rules
Since Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and Bono's mouth malfunction, networks have argued that they shouldn't be liable for indecency if it's "unscripted." Millions of viewers--and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)--disagreed. After an avalanche of complaints, the FCC modified its policy in 2004 and decided to punish even a single profane word on live television. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that policy in an overwhelming victory for American families. By a 5-4 decision, the justices overturned a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court ruling and empowered the FCC to fine networks that violate the rules. The court stopped short of deciding whether the FCC's policy is constitutional, but Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that it was "neither arbitrary nor capricious." In his opinion, he talked about the power of profanity to insult and said, "fleeting expletives constitute harmful first blows to children; it suffices to know that children mimic behavior they observe."
Global Warming Scam Part 4
2.1.2. UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES
Weather stations are not distributed uniformly and representatively over the earth’s surface. You cannot obtain a plausible average unless you start with a representative sample (see Wunsch et al 2008). Those conducting public opinion polls know very well that their results are meaningless unless they have a sample which covers the whole population in a random and representative fashion. Similarly, the television authorities need to have some way of setting rates for advertisers. Unless they do so the rates will be unfair and they lose money. They go to a lot of trouble in finding a representative sample population upon whose TV sets they can put their set boxes which determine their rates. The whole point of these examples is that their mistakes are soon apparent. Climate “projections” and even “predictions” are always so far ahead that nobody can check on them, so they can never be checked for validity. Weather stations cannot supply a representative sample. They are nearly all near cities or airports and do not include most of the earth’s surface. There are no measurements from farms, pastures, forests, deserts, glaciers, or icecaps. 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean but measurements there are even less representative, with very poor quality control.
2.1.3. NO LOCAL AVERAGE
If you want a “global average anomaly” you must surely start with a “local average anomaly” derived from a local average. No actual measurement of a local average temperature are ever made or at least published. Since temperatures are irregular, it is not even clear what the term “average” may mean. Since there is no sunlight at night, the distribution is skewed, so it cannot be modelled by a symmetrical function. Even if it is possible to find an acceptable mathematical model, there would be several possible alternative “averages”, such as mean, median, geometric, harmonic etc.
At most weather stations there is only one temperature measurement a day. If there is a maximum and minimum thermometer a daily maximum and a daily minimum can be recorded. It seems to be assumed that the mean of these quantities represents some sort of average, but Hansen (2008a) denies its value. Gray (2007a) showed that if you compare this average with the average of the 24 hourly readings from one midnight to another, you get a large bias, which for the average of 24 New Zealand weather stations was +0.5ºC for a typical summer day with a range of +2.6ºC to -0.4ºC and an average of +0.9ºC with a range of +1.9ºC to -0.9ºC for a typical winter day. The positive bias of the max/min average over the mean hourly value can thus be larger than the claimed effects of greenhouse warming. Yet this unsatisfactory “average” is used to derive a “mean global average temperature anomaly.”
Then there is the question of how do they calculate each “anomaly”? The following explanation appears on the NCDC website (2008):
"NOTE: From February 2006 through April 14, 2006, the anomalies provided from the links below were inadvertently provided as departures from the 1961-1990 average. Anomalies are now provided as departures from the 20th century average (1901-2000)."
Now, maybe they were able to calculate an average for the year 2000 from 1,600 stations and 500 gridboxes available and in the year 1901 they had 1,600 stations and 300 gridboxes. It sounds comparable; but the world was a very different place in the year1901 from the year 2000. The total number of possible 5ºx5º gridboxes is 2592, so, even today, they only cover 20% of the earth, and mostly near cities. It was actually better in the year 1985 when there were 6000 stations and nearly 900 gridboxes. Many have been closed down since then, mostly in rural areas where the results are less contaminated by urban heating.
In the year 1901, Antarctica, Central Africa and South America, and most of Siberia had no weather stations. Figures for the oceans were minimal and most of the stations were in the Northern Hemisphere. It might be mentioned that there have never been readings near the North Pole because the Arctic is an ocean. yet they keep telling us it is getting warmer without supporting observations. In 1901 thermometers were graduated in intervals of one degree Fahrenheit and the standards of the equipment, shelters and supervision were very different from today.
Weather stations are not distributed uniformly and representatively over the earth’s surface. You cannot obtain a plausible average unless you start with a representative sample (see Wunsch et al 2008). Those conducting public opinion polls know very well that their results are meaningless unless they have a sample which covers the whole population in a random and representative fashion. Similarly, the television authorities need to have some way of setting rates for advertisers. Unless they do so the rates will be unfair and they lose money. They go to a lot of trouble in finding a representative sample population upon whose TV sets they can put their set boxes which determine their rates. The whole point of these examples is that their mistakes are soon apparent. Climate “projections” and even “predictions” are always so far ahead that nobody can check on them, so they can never be checked for validity. Weather stations cannot supply a representative sample. They are nearly all near cities or airports and do not include most of the earth’s surface. There are no measurements from farms, pastures, forests, deserts, glaciers, or icecaps. 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean but measurements there are even less representative, with very poor quality control.
2.1.3. NO LOCAL AVERAGE
If you want a “global average anomaly” you must surely start with a “local average anomaly” derived from a local average. No actual measurement of a local average temperature are ever made or at least published. Since temperatures are irregular, it is not even clear what the term “average” may mean. Since there is no sunlight at night, the distribution is skewed, so it cannot be modelled by a symmetrical function. Even if it is possible to find an acceptable mathematical model, there would be several possible alternative “averages”, such as mean, median, geometric, harmonic etc.
At most weather stations there is only one temperature measurement a day. If there is a maximum and minimum thermometer a daily maximum and a daily minimum can be recorded. It seems to be assumed that the mean of these quantities represents some sort of average, but Hansen (2008a) denies its value. Gray (2007a) showed that if you compare this average with the average of the 24 hourly readings from one midnight to another, you get a large bias, which for the average of 24 New Zealand weather stations was +0.5ºC for a typical summer day with a range of +2.6ºC to -0.4ºC and an average of +0.9ºC with a range of +1.9ºC to -0.9ºC for a typical winter day. The positive bias of the max/min average over the mean hourly value can thus be larger than the claimed effects of greenhouse warming. Yet this unsatisfactory “average” is used to derive a “mean global average temperature anomaly.”
Then there is the question of how do they calculate each “anomaly”? The following explanation appears on the NCDC website (2008):
"NOTE: From February 2006 through April 14, 2006, the anomalies provided from the links below were inadvertently provided as departures from the 1961-1990 average. Anomalies are now provided as departures from the 20th century average (1901-2000)."
Now, maybe they were able to calculate an average for the year 2000 from 1,600 stations and 500 gridboxes available and in the year 1901 they had 1,600 stations and 300 gridboxes. It sounds comparable; but the world was a very different place in the year1901 from the year 2000. The total number of possible 5ºx5º gridboxes is 2592, so, even today, they only cover 20% of the earth, and mostly near cities. It was actually better in the year 1985 when there were 6000 stations and nearly 900 gridboxes. Many have been closed down since then, mostly in rural areas where the results are less contaminated by urban heating.
In the year 1901, Antarctica, Central Africa and South America, and most of Siberia had no weather stations. Figures for the oceans were minimal and most of the stations were in the Northern Hemisphere. It might be mentioned that there have never been readings near the North Pole because the Arctic is an ocean. yet they keep telling us it is getting warmer without supporting observations. In 1901 thermometers were graduated in intervals of one degree Fahrenheit and the standards of the equipment, shelters and supervision were very different from today.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Global Warming Scam Part 3
2. AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
2.1. THE MEAN GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
2.1.1. HANSEN’S SOLUTION
In an address to the US Congress on June 23rd 1988 James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York suggested a solution to the global average temperature problem which made use of temperature measurements from weather stations. The history of this suggestion has been reviewed by the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007). The world would be divided into latitude/longitude squares. The average monthly temperature would be obtained from qualifying stations in each square and compared with the average for a reference period. The difference would be a monthly, and then annual temperature anomaly, which appeared from his calculations to be increasing. The increase was very small (less than one degree Celsius per century), was intermittent, highly irregular, largely took place at night and mainly happened before significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions had taken place, but it was considered enough to assist the environmentalist campaign to blame the increase on carbon dioxide emissions.
Hansen, (2008a) has, however, clearly expressed his doubts on the reliability of such weather-station temperature measurements, as follows:
“GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
Q. What exactly do you mean by SAT?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Q. What do we mean by daily SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every two hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Q. What SAT do the local media report?
A. The media report the reading of one particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT we would have to use many 50ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.” Having stated that there is no agreed way to measure the surface air temperature, he talks about the “true” value which nobody agrees to; Essex et al (2007) argue that “there is no physically meaningful global temperature”. There are theoretical reasons why the average temperature of the earth’s surface cannot be measured. Because of the fact that the sun does not shine for half the time, its variability is non linear. It is impossible to simulate it with any of the mathematical functions used by statisticians and even if this were possible there is a variety of possible averages, such as the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, or the harmonic mean.
Hansen (2008a) goes on to say that even when you cannot agree on how to measure SAT you can measure the “anomalies” by using models and guesswork! He even attempts to “guess” the average temperature of the earth as “anywhere between 55º and 58ºF” (12.8ºC to 14.4ºC) for which he gives an unconvincing “global mean” of “roughly 14ºC”, apparently emanating from models. He has no actual evidence.
2.1. THE MEAN GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
2.1.1. HANSEN’S SOLUTION
In an address to the US Congress on June 23rd 1988 James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York suggested a solution to the global average temperature problem which made use of temperature measurements from weather stations. The history of this suggestion has been reviewed by the IPCC (Solomon et al. 2007). The world would be divided into latitude/longitude squares. The average monthly temperature would be obtained from qualifying stations in each square and compared with the average for a reference period. The difference would be a monthly, and then annual temperature anomaly, which appeared from his calculations to be increasing. The increase was very small (less than one degree Celsius per century), was intermittent, highly irregular, largely took place at night and mainly happened before significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions had taken place, but it was considered enough to assist the environmentalist campaign to blame the increase on carbon dioxide emissions.
Hansen, (2008a) has, however, clearly expressed his doubts on the reliability of such weather-station temperature measurements, as follows:
“GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)
Q. What exactly do you mean by SAT?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.
Q. What do we mean by daily SAT?
A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every two hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.
Q. What SAT do the local media report?
A. The media report the reading of one particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT we would have to use many 50ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.” Having stated that there is no agreed way to measure the surface air temperature, he talks about the “true” value which nobody agrees to; Essex et al (2007) argue that “there is no physically meaningful global temperature”. There are theoretical reasons why the average temperature of the earth’s surface cannot be measured. Because of the fact that the sun does not shine for half the time, its variability is non linear. It is impossible to simulate it with any of the mathematical functions used by statisticians and even if this were possible there is a variety of possible averages, such as the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, or the harmonic mean.
Hansen (2008a) goes on to say that even when you cannot agree on how to measure SAT you can measure the “anomalies” by using models and guesswork! He even attempts to “guess” the average temperature of the earth as “anywhere between 55º and 58ºF” (12.8ºC to 14.4ºC) for which he gives an unconvincing “global mean” of “roughly 14ºC”, apparently emanating from models. He has no actual evidence.
Erring on the Unsafe Side
Without so much as a whimper, it seems the Obama administration will acquiesce to a U.S. District Court ruling as an excuse to allow 17-year-olds to buy the morning-after pill without a prescription or their parents' consent. An official with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told reporters that an announcement on the subject was forthcoming but that the decision had been made to overturn the current policy, which dates back to the Bush administration. As we reported last month, Judge Edward Korman ordered FDA officials to make Plan B available over-the-counter to minors as young as 17. As our own Chris Gacek points out, the Department of Justice should be called in to defend the FDA guidelines on Plan B. In this case, however, the Obama administration has decided to roll over and accept the court decision without a single appeal. Essentially, the President is allowing a lone federal district judge to make a scientific decision that affects the health and safety of women across America. For the young administration, it shows an incredible disinclination to fight for good policy. Considering the risks that Plan B poses to women and its unproven track record after repeated use, there seems to be no rational basis for the President's decision--except political ideology. Officials in the Bush administration understood the deep concerns over the morning-after pill and were not convinced by data that teens could use Plan B safely. After all, regular-dose birth control pills aren't sold without a doctor's supervision. There seems to be no such solicitude for young girls in Obama's FDA, which has proven more than content to put politics ahead of sound medical care.(frc.org)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Global Warming Scam Part 2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL RELIGION
The global warming scam is the result of the widespread belief in a new religion, based on the deification of anebulous entity, “The Environment”. "The Environment" is an extension of the concept of “Nature* which was held sacred by the Romantics, but it is a much more demanding deity, requiring constant and increasing sacrifices from humans. Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution and it is paradoxical that it can be so widespread when next year (2009) is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his major work “The Origin of Species as the Result of Natural Selection”. All of the basic beliefs of Environmentalism are in direct conflict with contemporary understanding of the principles of Darwinism. Despite this fact, many scientists are supporters of Environmentalist dogmas and some are prepared to claim that they are compatible with Darwinism.
1.2. HUMANS ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET
The religious belief (from Genesis Chapter 1, verse 20) that humans have “dominion” over the earth is now extended so that humans take over the function of God and are responsible for all other creatures. Human influence is purely negative and destructive. The other creatures would be better off without us. We are destroying the planet. As this proposition is absurd, desperate attempts must be made to find evidence to support it. Campaigns have been conducted against the human use of chemical pesticides (“Silent Spring”), of “Depletion” of “Resources” (“Club of Rome”), and against the “Population Bomb” (Ehrlich) and even against plastic bags and baby’s bottles. The latest and most successful campaign is the claim that the earth is being dangerously warmed by human emissions of greenhouse gases. The widespread restrictions on “emissions” that have followed have led to the collapse of the world energy industry, with soaring prices of oil and electric power and deliberate promotion of world poverty by the use of agriculture to produce “biofuels” instead of food.
1.3. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
A greenhouse enables higher temperatures within it because it prevents release of the rising warmer air caused by solar radiation. This is quite different from the claimed “greenhouse effect”; the absorption of infra red radiation from the earth by some of the components of the earth’s atmosphere, called “greenhouse gases”. This absorption heats the atmosphere and causes “global warming”. The whole question is, by how much, and does it matter? The claim that human emissions of greenhouse gases are dangerously warming the earth was first made by the
Swedish chemist Arrhenius (1865 and see Wikipedia 2008). The claim was criticised at the time, and as global temperatures fell for the subsequent 15 years, followed by the First World War and an economic crisis, the claim lost urgency. It was, however, revived in 1938 by Callendar who selected atmospheric carbon dioxide results to suit his theory from the many available. He suffered a similar fate to Arrhenius, since global temperatures fell for the following 38 years. During this period confident predictions were made of the coming ice age, some by the same
scientists (such as Rasool and Schneider 1971) now predicting future warming.
1.4. RECENT REVIVAL
Since temperatures seemed to be rising once again, the claim that human-emitted greenhouse gases are warming the earth was taken up by the environmental movement in the late 1970s as yet another example of their belief that humans are harming the earth. In order to prove this proposition they were faced with three insoluble problems.
• It is not possible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface. To do so would involve placing thermometers or other measuring equipment in a random and representative fashion over all parts of the surface, including the 71% that is ocean. Since this is currently impossible, it is equally impossible to find if the average temperature is increasing.
• It is not possible to measure the average greenhouse gas concentration over all parts of the earth’s atmosphere by placing measuring equipment randomly throughout.
• Since weather cannot be predicted reliably more than a week or so ahead, it is impossible to provide reliable forecasts any further ahead than this.
None of these problems has been solved, but environmentalists have succeeded in persuading many people that they have provided scientifically acceptable solutions. This paper examines the “evidence” that has been presented so far, and shows that all of it is scientifically unsound. (Vincent Gray)
1.1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL RELIGION
The global warming scam is the result of the widespread belief in a new religion, based on the deification of anebulous entity, “The Environment”. "The Environment" is an extension of the concept of “Nature* which was held sacred by the Romantics, but it is a much more demanding deity, requiring constant and increasing sacrifices from humans. Environmentalism is just the latest attempt to find a substitute for the theory of evolution and it is paradoxical that it can be so widespread when next year (2009) is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his major work “The Origin of Species as the Result of Natural Selection”. All of the basic beliefs of Environmentalism are in direct conflict with contemporary understanding of the principles of Darwinism. Despite this fact, many scientists are supporters of Environmentalist dogmas and some are prepared to claim that they are compatible with Darwinism.
1.2. HUMANS ARE DESTROYING THE PLANET
The religious belief (from Genesis Chapter 1, verse 20) that humans have “dominion” over the earth is now extended so that humans take over the function of God and are responsible for all other creatures. Human influence is purely negative and destructive. The other creatures would be better off without us. We are destroying the planet. As this proposition is absurd, desperate attempts must be made to find evidence to support it. Campaigns have been conducted against the human use of chemical pesticides (“Silent Spring”), of “Depletion” of “Resources” (“Club of Rome”), and against the “Population Bomb” (Ehrlich) and even against plastic bags and baby’s bottles. The latest and most successful campaign is the claim that the earth is being dangerously warmed by human emissions of greenhouse gases. The widespread restrictions on “emissions” that have followed have led to the collapse of the world energy industry, with soaring prices of oil and electric power and deliberate promotion of world poverty by the use of agriculture to produce “biofuels” instead of food.
1.3. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
A greenhouse enables higher temperatures within it because it prevents release of the rising warmer air caused by solar radiation. This is quite different from the claimed “greenhouse effect”; the absorption of infra red radiation from the earth by some of the components of the earth’s atmosphere, called “greenhouse gases”. This absorption heats the atmosphere and causes “global warming”. The whole question is, by how much, and does it matter? The claim that human emissions of greenhouse gases are dangerously warming the earth was first made by the
Swedish chemist Arrhenius (1865 and see Wikipedia 2008). The claim was criticised at the time, and as global temperatures fell for the subsequent 15 years, followed by the First World War and an economic crisis, the claim lost urgency. It was, however, revived in 1938 by Callendar who selected atmospheric carbon dioxide results to suit his theory from the many available. He suffered a similar fate to Arrhenius, since global temperatures fell for the following 38 years. During this period confident predictions were made of the coming ice age, some by the same
scientists (such as Rasool and Schneider 1971) now predicting future warming.
1.4. RECENT REVIVAL
Since temperatures seemed to be rising once again, the claim that human-emitted greenhouse gases are warming the earth was taken up by the environmental movement in the late 1970s as yet another example of their belief that humans are harming the earth. In order to prove this proposition they were faced with three insoluble problems.
• It is not possible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface. To do so would involve placing thermometers or other measuring equipment in a random and representative fashion over all parts of the surface, including the 71% that is ocean. Since this is currently impossible, it is equally impossible to find if the average temperature is increasing.
• It is not possible to measure the average greenhouse gas concentration over all parts of the earth’s atmosphere by placing measuring equipment randomly throughout.
• Since weather cannot be predicted reliably more than a week or so ahead, it is impossible to provide reliable forecasts any further ahead than this.
None of these problems has been solved, but environmentalists have succeeded in persuading many people that they have provided scientifically acceptable solutions. This paper examines the “evidence” that has been presented so far, and shows that all of it is scientifically unsound. (Vincent Gray)
No Strings Attached?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner surprised everyone yesterday when he announced that the banks receiving government bailout money would not be allowed to pay off the loans early. For firms like J.P. Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, the administration's "gotcha" moment came in the form of Tuesday's press conference, when Geithner said it was up to the government to decide when and how the banks repaid their TARP debts.Anxious to get out from under Washington's thumb, some had asked to be released from their bailouts. Not so fast, said Geithner, who indicated that the banks were at the mercy of the "system as a whole" and its ability to rebound collectively. For the firms frustrated by the President's constant meddling, the news is a crushing blow. But for Uncle Sam, who delights in this new role as the federal loan shark, the ability to dictate everything from executive salaries to internal purchases is simply too much power to walk away from.
As Larry Kudlow points out on NRO, "If a bank has the money to pay the taxpayers back, they should be allowed to do so. Is ... Obama... simply trying to maintain control over the banks?" Or worse, nationalize them for good? This example of payday loan politics should serve as a warning to any companies seeking government handouts that Washington will hold their autonomy as collateral. After Geithner informed the banks of this small print, the markets took a predictable dive. (frc.com)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Tribute to our World's Greatest Hero
Its been awhile since I've posted anything about Superman, so I thought I put a little segment of my favorite video tributes to our World's Greatest Hero, Superman.
#6
#5
#4
#3
#2
#1
#6
#5
#4
#3
#2
#1
Global Warming Scam Part 1
Over the last decade there has been a lot of speculation going around throughout the media and the world on Global Warming. It is one of those issues, that has caused some people to become advocates for it, or they are one of those that keep on changing their views of it and can't decide if it is true, half true, or completely bogus. A couple of years ago I took a course for my Depth Physical Science credit at Utah State. The class was Climate Change. The reason I wanted to take this class was primary of my interest in weather, and that I had previous took the prerequisite course Introduction to Weather as a General Breath credit in Physical Science. I never thought it would become a course to promote Global Warming. From what I can remember from this class we discussed the changes our climate goes through as a normal process, but with all of the hype of Global Warming being big in the media, the showing of Al Gore's Doc. "An Inconvenient Truth," and the publishing of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) report, it was more of a course on Global Warming, not Climate Change. I remember my professor was so excited to show us Al Gore's movie and wanting us to believe in Global Warming. I had my issues from the beginning with my professor, but I mostly kept my opinion to myself throughout the course. Since then I have taken some time, did some research, and found more evidence to prove my knowledge that Global Warming has been brought to us way out of proportion. This is why I am beginning a series of posts to share with you information that I hope will bring a more clearer understanding to The Global Warming Phenomenon. I hope you enjoy it.
To Begin I want to take parts from a project made by Vincent Gray, a Climate Consultant from New Zealand. Here are some of his words:
The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems:
- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved
It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent. The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback” to the global temperature models. Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”. No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been suppressed. Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalised farmers for animal recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that “climate” can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth” theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities. This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere “projections”. Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity. Since no model has been validated, they are “evaluated” based on “simulations”, which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a “fudged fit”. Several such attempts fail to agree with observations. Future “projections”, which combine the untested models and exaggerated “scenarios” are graded for their “likelihood” from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious “probability” attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification. Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth.
To be Continued.....
To Begin I want to take parts from a project made by Vincent Gray, a Climate Consultant from New Zealand. Here are some of his words:
The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems:
- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved
It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent. The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback” to the global temperature models. Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”. No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been suppressed. Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalised farmers for animal recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that “climate” can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth” theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities. This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere “projections”. Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity. Since no model has been validated, they are “evaluated” based on “simulations”, which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a “fudged fit”. Several such attempts fail to agree with observations. Future “projections”, which combine the untested models and exaggerated “scenarios” are graded for their “likelihood” from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious “probability” attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification. Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth.
To be Continued.....
Financial Sense Volume 1 Issue 2
More Myths and Truths of Personal Finance
Debt Reduction
Myth: Only the rich can be debt free.
Truth: Anyone can be debt free. True debt reduction is plain common sense and hard work
Are you willing to get another job and work a few 80-hour weeks? If you are in financial stress because of something you've done, you need to get yourself out of the mess by working. If you think that it is too hard, you will never get out of the debt that you brought upon yourself. Laziness is a sickness, and it will get you absolutely nowhere in life. We all make mistakes (including myself), but the question is whether you are willing to take responsibility for your mistakes? You need to learn from your mistakes or you and your children will be doomed to repeat the cycle. How badly do you want to be out of debt? Then there are lazy people who look for a quick fix, such as debt consolidation or debt management. Real debt help is not quick or easy. Laziness is a character flaw. You need to be willing to work and sacrifice in order to fix the situations that you created with your own irresponsibility. If you are not willing, then you cannot be helped.
Life Insurance
Myth: Cash value life insurance, like whole life, will help me retire wealthy
Truth: Cash value life insurance is on of the worst financial products available.
Sadly, over 70% of the life insurance policies sold today are cash value policies. A cash value policy is an insurance product that packages insurance and savings together. DO NOT INVEST MONEY IN LIFE INSURANCE; they have Horrible returns! Your insurance agent will probably show you wonderful projections, but none of these policies have perform as projected. Here is an example to help you understand: If a 30 year old man has $100 per month to spend on life insurance and shops the top 5 cash value companies, he will find he can purchase an average of $125,000 in insurance for his family. The pitch is to get a policy that will build up savings for retirement, which is what a cash value policy does. However, if this same guy purchases 20 year level term insurance with coverage of $125,000, the cost will be only $7 per month, not $100. Just think, if he goes with the cash value option that $93 per month should be going into a savings, right? Nope, all of the $93 would disappear in commissions and expenses for the first 3 years. According to Consumer Federation of America, Kiplinger's Personal Finance, and Fortune magazines, the return would average 2.6% per year for whole life, 4.2% for universal life, and just 7.4% for the new and improved variable life policy that includes mutual funds. The problem is that you can invest in mutual funds outside of these policies that average 12% per year.
Here is another hidden catch. With whole life and universal life, the savings you finally build up after being ripped off for years actually doesn't go your family upon your death as you might think. The only benefit paid to your family is the face value of the policy, the $125,000. The truth is that you would be better off to get the $7 term policy and put that extra $93 in a cookie jar! At least after 3 years you would have $3,000, and when you died your family would get your savings. So when you are decided on life insurance for your family, just think of this simple line, Buy term and invest the difference.
Money and Relationships
Myth: My spouse and I shouldn't talk about money because it only leads to fights.
Truth: You can't have a great relationship until you can communicate and agree about money.
Larry Burkett, financial author, says, "Money is either the best or the worse area of communication in our marriages." Statistics show the #1 cause of divorce in our nation is money. When it comes to money, men tend to take more risks and don't save for emergencies. Men use money as a scorecard and can struggle with self-esteem when there are in financial problems. Women tend to see money more of a means of security, so they will gravitate toward the rainy-day fund. Because of their need for security, ladies can have a level of fear or even terror when there are financial problems. Men and women are different in how they view money, and it is largely because they process problems and opportunities from different vantage points. On top of the fact that men and women are different, opposites attract. Chances are, if you're married, one of you is good at working numbers, the nerd, and the other one isn't good at working numbers ,the free spirit. That isn't the real problem. The problem is when the nerd neglects the input of the free spirit or when the free spirit avoids participating in the financial dealings altogether. For in Matt. 19:5, its says, "...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Just as a husband and wife should be one with each other, the same they should be one with their finances. One bank account for both, knowing together what transactions are being made, and more importantly making big financial decisions together.
Debt Reduction
Myth: Only the rich can be debt free.
Truth: Anyone can be debt free. True debt reduction is plain common sense and hard work
Are you willing to get another job and work a few 80-hour weeks? If you are in financial stress because of something you've done, you need to get yourself out of the mess by working. If you think that it is too hard, you will never get out of the debt that you brought upon yourself. Laziness is a sickness, and it will get you absolutely nowhere in life. We all make mistakes (including myself), but the question is whether you are willing to take responsibility for your mistakes? You need to learn from your mistakes or you and your children will be doomed to repeat the cycle. How badly do you want to be out of debt? Then there are lazy people who look for a quick fix, such as debt consolidation or debt management. Real debt help is not quick or easy. Laziness is a character flaw. You need to be willing to work and sacrifice in order to fix the situations that you created with your own irresponsibility. If you are not willing, then you cannot be helped.
Life Insurance
Myth: Cash value life insurance, like whole life, will help me retire wealthy
Truth: Cash value life insurance is on of the worst financial products available.
Sadly, over 70% of the life insurance policies sold today are cash value policies. A cash value policy is an insurance product that packages insurance and savings together. DO NOT INVEST MONEY IN LIFE INSURANCE; they have Horrible returns! Your insurance agent will probably show you wonderful projections, but none of these policies have perform as projected. Here is an example to help you understand: If a 30 year old man has $100 per month to spend on life insurance and shops the top 5 cash value companies, he will find he can purchase an average of $125,000 in insurance for his family. The pitch is to get a policy that will build up savings for retirement, which is what a cash value policy does. However, if this same guy purchases 20 year level term insurance with coverage of $125,000, the cost will be only $7 per month, not $100. Just think, if he goes with the cash value option that $93 per month should be going into a savings, right? Nope, all of the $93 would disappear in commissions and expenses for the first 3 years. According to Consumer Federation of America, Kiplinger's Personal Finance, and Fortune magazines, the return would average 2.6% per year for whole life, 4.2% for universal life, and just 7.4% for the new and improved variable life policy that includes mutual funds. The problem is that you can invest in mutual funds outside of these policies that average 12% per year.
Here is another hidden catch. With whole life and universal life, the savings you finally build up after being ripped off for years actually doesn't go your family upon your death as you might think. The only benefit paid to your family is the face value of the policy, the $125,000. The truth is that you would be better off to get the $7 term policy and put that extra $93 in a cookie jar! At least after 3 years you would have $3,000, and when you died your family would get your savings. So when you are decided on life insurance for your family, just think of this simple line, Buy term and invest the difference.
Money and Relationships
Myth: My spouse and I shouldn't talk about money because it only leads to fights.
Truth: You can't have a great relationship until you can communicate and agree about money.
Larry Burkett, financial author, says, "Money is either the best or the worse area of communication in our marriages." Statistics show the #1 cause of divorce in our nation is money. When it comes to money, men tend to take more risks and don't save for emergencies. Men use money as a scorecard and can struggle with self-esteem when there are in financial problems. Women tend to see money more of a means of security, so they will gravitate toward the rainy-day fund. Because of their need for security, ladies can have a level of fear or even terror when there are financial problems. Men and women are different in how they view money, and it is largely because they process problems and opportunities from different vantage points. On top of the fact that men and women are different, opposites attract. Chances are, if you're married, one of you is good at working numbers, the nerd, and the other one isn't good at working numbers ,the free spirit. That isn't the real problem. The problem is when the nerd neglects the input of the free spirit or when the free spirit avoids participating in the financial dealings altogether. For in Matt. 19:5, its says, "...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Just as a husband and wife should be one with each other, the same they should be one with their finances. One bank account for both, knowing together what transactions are being made, and more importantly making big financial decisions together.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Financial Sense Volume 1 Issue 1
Hi everyone, I've decided to begin a series of financial advice post to share with you. Now, first of all, the reason I am doing this because this is the subject of my greatest interest. Second, even though I am in a financial restart for myself, I feel I can help give financial sense to people. In today's Economy, things appear to be in chaos and in a downward spiral. What we see in the economy and what is found in the majority of Americans, we must remember the importance to have our own houses in order. I hope the things I will be sharing with you will make good sense and make finances a little easier. Enjoy.
Here are some general Myths and Truths of Personal Finance:
Debt
Myth: Debt is a tool and should be used to help create prosperity
Truth: Debt isn't used by wealthy people nearly as much as we are led to believe
Advice:
Debt is dumb. Most normal people are just plain broke because they are in debt up to their eyeballs with no hope of help. To my opinion, there should only be one thing is acceptable to go in debt with, that is a home. Cars and any other recreational vehicles depreciate the moment you buy it. They should be paid in cash, and if you don't have the cash, you can't afford it. But it should not be burden on you. Your monthly mortgage payment should not be more than half of your take-home pay. If it is, don't buy it, you can't afford it. If you're in debt, then you're a slave because you do not have the freedom to use your money to help change your family tree. It takes a lot of will, discipline, courage and help to slay the debt monster, but it is possible. Just think, how much wealth you can build toward retirement if you didn't have a stupid car payment? If you have wondered how the wealthy got where they are, they didn't do it by being in debt. Our nation has become the worshipers of the Holy FICO score. It has become a routine for people to be proud in how high their FICO score is. For a lot of people, they feel that it is the only way of living. Being debt free is the way of feeling rich, without actually being an millionaire and earning an average income in an America. If you are in debt, get out of it! I will probably give other posts that will give detail on debt reduction, but here are some simple advice. You should pay off the smallest debt first, not necessary the one with the highest interest rate. The math appears to make more sense to pay the ones with higher interest rates first, but personal finance is 20% knowledge and 80% behavior. By paying the smallest debt first, it gives you the momentum towards debt freedom.
Credit Card Debt
Myth: Aren't there positive uses of a credit card?
Truth: To the majority of America, responsible use of a credit card doesn't exist. Credit Card debt is a major problem in America.
Advice:
There are probably several different opinions for the use of credit cards. If you can't control your spending, credit cards should not exist in your life. You will spend more if you use credit cards. When you pay cash, you can actually see and feel the money leaving your hand. You can't feel that with a credit card. A lot of times it feels like invisible money being used. On average, you will spend 12-18% more on purchases if you use a credit card instead of cash. Just think if that money was put into savings instead. If you absolutely need to use "plastic," use a debit card. When you use a debit card it is a direct use of your money in a bank account, not a charge now, pay later scenario. On a side note, when you use a debit card to make a purchase and you are given the question, debit or credit, what do you chose? When ever you have this option, use debit. This is a direct withdrawal from your account. When you use credit, the credit card company charges fines to the company you are using your check card to purchase with. Interest rates in credit cards are also the worst in the world. Plus they have the ability to change them at anytime. Just remember you can't build wealth and financial freedom through credit cards. For those very few in an America that use credit cards responsibly, I'm sure they never use them for a certain amount of money that doesn't exist in their bank account. They would also always pay them off every month, as well.
Here are some general Myths and Truths of Personal Finance:
Debt
Myth: Debt is a tool and should be used to help create prosperity
Truth: Debt isn't used by wealthy people nearly as much as we are led to believe
Advice:
Debt is dumb. Most normal people are just plain broke because they are in debt up to their eyeballs with no hope of help. To my opinion, there should only be one thing is acceptable to go in debt with, that is a home. Cars and any other recreational vehicles depreciate the moment you buy it. They should be paid in cash, and if you don't have the cash, you can't afford it. But it should not be burden on you. Your monthly mortgage payment should not be more than half of your take-home pay. If it is, don't buy it, you can't afford it. If you're in debt, then you're a slave because you do not have the freedom to use your money to help change your family tree. It takes a lot of will, discipline, courage and help to slay the debt monster, but it is possible. Just think, how much wealth you can build toward retirement if you didn't have a stupid car payment? If you have wondered how the wealthy got where they are, they didn't do it by being in debt. Our nation has become the worshipers of the Holy FICO score. It has become a routine for people to be proud in how high their FICO score is. For a lot of people, they feel that it is the only way of living. Being debt free is the way of feeling rich, without actually being an millionaire and earning an average income in an America. If you are in debt, get out of it! I will probably give other posts that will give detail on debt reduction, but here are some simple advice. You should pay off the smallest debt first, not necessary the one with the highest interest rate. The math appears to make more sense to pay the ones with higher interest rates first, but personal finance is 20% knowledge and 80% behavior. By paying the smallest debt first, it gives you the momentum towards debt freedom.
Credit Card Debt
Myth: Aren't there positive uses of a credit card?
Truth: To the majority of America, responsible use of a credit card doesn't exist. Credit Card debt is a major problem in America.
Advice:
There are probably several different opinions for the use of credit cards. If you can't control your spending, credit cards should not exist in your life. You will spend more if you use credit cards. When you pay cash, you can actually see and feel the money leaving your hand. You can't feel that with a credit card. A lot of times it feels like invisible money being used. On average, you will spend 12-18% more on purchases if you use a credit card instead of cash. Just think if that money was put into savings instead. If you absolutely need to use "plastic," use a debit card. When you use a debit card it is a direct use of your money in a bank account, not a charge now, pay later scenario. On a side note, when you use a debit card to make a purchase and you are given the question, debit or credit, what do you chose? When ever you have this option, use debit. This is a direct withdrawal from your account. When you use credit, the credit card company charges fines to the company you are using your check card to purchase with. Interest rates in credit cards are also the worst in the world. Plus they have the ability to change them at anytime. Just remember you can't build wealth and financial freedom through credit cards. For those very few in an America that use credit cards responsibly, I'm sure they never use them for a certain amount of money that doesn't exist in their bank account. They would also always pay them off every month, as well.
Sebelius's PAC of Lies
In a special AP report, new details have emerged about the relationship between late-term abortionist George Tiller and the President's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. According to documents, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.) failed to disclose the total contribution by Tiller to the Governor's political action committee, which was three times the amount that she indicated to members of the Senate Finance Committee. Although the Governor wrote that she received $12,450 during 1994-2001, she conveniently ignored the $23,000 that Tiller gave between 2000-2002 to a PAC that Sebelius created.
This is the second time that the Kansas Governor has come under fire for failing to disclose relevant financial information; the first was for her failure to pay thousands in back taxes. The most recent omission, however, is far more deadly. Not only did she lowball the money connection with Tiller, but she hid the fact that these campaign dollars came from the actual abortion clinics Tiller ran. Despite direct questions from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in her hearing, those facts were not disclosed to the Senate Finance Committee until they were uncovered this week.
Of course, it's no coincidence that shortly after Tiller funneled abortion tainted money to her PAC, Sebelius vetoed a measure that would have imposed minimal health standards on Kansas abortion clinics. As it stands, most of these clinics operate with less oversight than veterinary clinics. This latest revelation of Sebelius's cozy relationship with the worst of the worst in the abortion industry should cause senators, especially Senate Republicans, to oppose giving her oversight of America's health care. (AP)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)