The Party of Hell No!

Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see some passionate opposition to what the Demoratic leadership is attempting to do to our country.  The people are passionate so why aren't the Republican leaders?

Instead of trying to overcome the label of "party of no" slapped on the Republicans, why don't they embrace it and add some passion to it?  Wouldn't it be fun to have some leaders coming out and saying with passion and conviction, "We're not the party of no, we're the party of Hell no, not on my watch!"

Hell no to a deficit so crippling we're in danger of losing our credit rating.
Hell no to wasteful spending that serves nobody but the politicians
Hell no to crippling legislation for a problem that may not even exist
Hell no to unprecedented growth of the federal government
Hell no to a transfer of power from the Legislative to Executive branch in direct violation of our Constitutional principles.
Hell no to civil rights for terrorists
Hell no to a new entitlement program which will cripple the American economy
Hell no to putting climate change and health care above job creation

If asked about why Republicans don't have new ideas, they should simply respond, "Are you kidding, we've got our hands full just trying to keep the Constitution from going through the shredder."

Wouldn't it be lovely?

Following the "Un"

With all of the discussion on climategate and the United Nation's goals as it relates to global warming, I have to wonder why we ever do anything in line with the UN.  Over the last decades they have earned their initials.  Sadly, if you want to know what the United Nations can do, just list your expectations and still their initials in front of it.  That is what they really are.

un - objective
un - ethical
un - effective (not a real word but you get the drift)
un - truthful
un - cooperative
un - productive
un - helpful
un - supportive

Yes indeed, the organization has lived up to its initials.

Mann Made Climate Change

Finally I understand the climate change debate.  For all this time I believed that they meant human beings were contributing to the documented rise in global temperatures.  Now I understand that when they said global warming was man made, they were actually saying it was Mann made.  It makes so much more sense to me now.

When do you think the UN is going to catch on?

Copenhage Schmocenhagen

Let me start by saying that I believe we should be good stewards of our planet and do our best to preserve our natural resources. That being said, I am strongly, really strongly, adamantly opposed to signing any legally binding treaty that gives the UN authority over our businesses.

We are a self-governed nation which means that we the people make the decisions on what will and will not happen in our nation. We may elect officials who don't follow-through on our directives, but we at least have the authority to vote the bums out of office. If Obama signs a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen then the UN will be able to impose crippling regulations on our already struggling businesses and we will have no say whatsoever in what happens. We will not be able to vote on what is done, we will not be able to voice our displeasure to the imposers, and most importantly, we will not be able to stop it by exercising our voting rights. We will be under the control of a group of people unanswerable to the people of the United States of America.

Much has been said about American principles, but the most important is that we are a nation governed by the people. Should a legally binding treaty be signed at any time in the future, then we will no longer be in control of our own destiny. This may start with regulations on our businesses, but just imagine what the panel of experts in control of our fate could deem necessary to affect global climate change. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that they could dictate what car we can drive or how many vehicles we can have? Or even how many miles we are allowed to drive in a year? We would be abdicating our sovereignty our our rights to self-govern to a group of people we know nothing about. This absolutely cannot happen.

I read in November 6th article in the Timesonline, a UK organization, that "The Global Humanitarian Forum, based in Geneva, has estimated that more than 300,000 people are killed each year by climate change, nearly all of them in poor countries." How can something like this possibly be quantified? I'd love to see the data on how this number was determined and how the deaths were sourced to climate change. But then again, it's probably been dumped or shredded and the raw data is gone with only the summary remaining.

We do need to be good stewards of our planet, but we absolutely do not need to abdicate our sovereignty in order to do so. Quite frankly, Copenhagen should mean nothing to the American people except as a chewing tobacco.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

I'm a statistical process control analyst for my day job. This means that I deal with statistics every day and I know what they can tell you and what you can MAKE them tell you. The trouble with statistics is that it's pretty easy to manipulate your data to tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth. This appears to be what has happened with CO2 and climate change.

I can hear the outrage already from some, but the theory (yes, it's only a theory) that CO2 emissions has caused global warming isn't supported by the unmanipulated data. The main theory around the CO2 levels causing global warming comes from the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling who based their work on historic arctic ice core readings. The problem is that they didn't use all of the data. They used only the low readings over the years and discarded the high ones. In essence, they manipulated their data.

I decided to do some research on this and found a wonderful site with lots of excellent, though technical, information in an article written by Dr Tim Ball in the Canada Free Press. Much of what I'm going to share with you comes from that article.

Here is what is called a scatter plot. It's a very simple tool we geeks use to see what's going on. In this scatter plot, the historical CO2 levels from the ice core readings are logged. All of them. The circled dots are the ones that were selected for use by creators of the CO2 emissions theory on global warming. Notice anything a little wonky? Only the low readings were used. By throwing out the high readings they can make the statistics say whatever they want. And the world swallowed it hook, line and sinker. And think about this, if the historical CO2 levels we base our theories on are wrong, then what they put in the climate model is wrong, and all of the dire predictions that model gave us are, you guessed it, wrong.

But let's not stop here. One of my favorite graphs in the analysis is that as the CO2 levels rise so does the temperate. But what they don't tell you while looking at all the lines and dots on the graph, is that the temperate actually rises BEFORE the CO2 levels. It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. This looks more like a temperature increase is causing higher CO2 levels than the currently accepted theory of the opposite.

Here's the bottom line, statistics are only as good as the data used to calculate them. And the data is only as good as the people obtaining it. The data collection, and therefore the data, used to determine that CO2 is causing global warming (or climate change as it's now known) has been called into serious question, but are we taking another look at the data as we should? Nope. Instead we're working to pass expensive legislation to impact the CO2 levels that real data shows is not our problem.

Could global warming be accelerated by man? Yes, it is a possibility. But the data, the real data, all the data, shows that CO2 is not what's causing it. By focusing on a theory that has been disproved, we may be missing the real issue. We're acting like bad cops who ignore exculpatory evidence and work to convict the wrong man while letting the real criminal go free. Of course, man may also have little to no impact on global warming at all. Who'd have thunk it.

For more information, please read Dr Ball's article here. http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/exposing-the-global-warming-myth-co2-levels/