Category Archives: climate

Setting Up The Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

Watts Up With That is reporting a Mail on Sunday piece wherein a NOAA whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a leading scientist with NOAA at the time, has given MoA irrefutable evidence that the “Pausebuster” paper that NOAA rushed to print with lots of publicity just ahead of the 2009 Paris climate agreement was based on misleading, “unverified” data.  The purpose of the rush was to influence those present, including ex-President Barack Obama (D), and con them into believing that not only did the pause in global warming that’s still ongoing, not only never existed, the warming is continuing at a faster pace than thought.

It gets worse.

Not only had [NOAA] failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a “highly experimental early run” of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.

About that program:

[T]he…software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so “unstable” that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results.

And this:

…failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science [which published the “Pausebuster” paper]. Before [Dr Bates] retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: “I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.”

The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.

Now, here it comes.

Dr Bates said: “How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity—and failed.”

And NOAA’s coverup, perhaps to cover its embarrassment over its incompetence and dishonesty, perhaps to prepare the ground for its coming slur against the new administration:

After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

It’s beginning to look like NOAA needs to be abolished.  Surely, we have better uses for its $6 billion budget (requested for 2016) than to fund falsified “science.”

The Party of No Refugees

Posted on by
Reply

…doesn’t turn out to be Republicans, or even President Donald Trump.

Recall the Vietnam War, and our collapse in it, including the abandonment of South Vietnam by the Democrats then controlling the Congress when North Vietnam began its final invasion and that Democratic Congress refused to allow the US to try to rescue the South.

Recall the vasty numbers of refugees trying to escape the North’s takeover and to come to the US.

The Democrats said, “No!”

…a chorus of big name Democrats…refused to accept any Vietnamese refugees when millions were trying to escape South Vietnam as it fell to the communists.

They even opposed orphans.

These Democrats included

California’s then and now Governor Jerry Brown
Delaware’s Democratic Senator and lately Vice President Joe Biden
former presidential “peace candidate” George McGovern
New York Democratic Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman

Brown even went so far as to try to prevent refugee-laden aircraft from landing at the Federal government’s Air Force Base, Travis.  The Democrats’ excuse, epitomized by Brown?

We can’t be looking 5,000 miles away and at the same time neglecting people who live here.

And

They said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didn’t want these people.

And this:

McGovern said he thought 90% of the Vietnamese arrivals “would be better off going back to their own land,” according to the Library of Congress.

Three of those are still around, and two of them remain active in Progressive-Democratic Party politics.

Refugees, to this Party, to the individual men and women of this Party, are not human beings in desperate straits.  Not at all.  Refugees are merely tools for scoring political points for personal political gain.

Oh, and let’s not forget that Progressive-Democratic Party heroic icon, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who locked up hundreds of thousands of Americans who were already here just because they happened to have Japanese, Italian, or German heritage.

Growing Irrelevance of the World Economic Forum

Posted on by
1

The rising income gap and growing rifts in Western societies that led to the election of Donald Trump and the Brexit vote are the main global risks, according to a report by the World Economic Forum ahead of its annual forum in Davos next week.

Climate change and technological disruption were also listed as important risks in a survey of 750 law makers, business leaders and academics carried out by the WEF….

No, the rising income gap isn’t why President-Elect Donald Trump was elected, nor was it why Great Britain voted to go out from the European Union.  Quite the contrary: it was because those on the bottom and in the middle were being held down by the policies of the Know Betters and by the latter’s desperation for votes—votes bought and paid for by handouts that trap folks in the Know Betters’ welfare cages.  That that contributed to a rising income gap is only a side effect.  The bottom and middle class folks simply wanted their opportunity to get rich, too.

Climate change isn’t a risk at all; it’s a certainty.  The Earth is illuminated and warmed by the sun, the sun has been heating up for its entire four billion year existence, and it’ll continue to heat up for the next several billion years.  Global warming—which is what climatistas mean when they changed the name to and talk about “climate change”—is a pseudo-science whose sole industrial function is to transfer government funds to the “industry.”

Technological disruption is a good; it’s how progress and prosperity happen in a free market—and without a free market there is neither progress and prosperity nor any technological change at all.  It’s a risk, too, but it’s one that’s well understood by everyone who’s had a high school economics class.

And there’s this nonsense from Cecilia Reyes, Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance Group, speaking at the gathering:

The momentous political changes in 2016 raised worries about the health of liberal democracy that has underpinned global prosperity[.]

No, the health of liberal democracy took a dramatic turn for the better, exemplified by the repudiation of the policies of eight years of the Obama administration and the Progressive-Democratic Party’s control over the Congress as a whole and then of the Senate.  That repudiation was broader than just a rejection of those policies, though: the real turn for the better was the repudiation of the increasingly authoritarian behavior of the Progressive-Democratic Party and of the Left in general.

No, the WEF is just getting a bit too far out of touch with the world.

Climate Change and Science

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Tim Ball has an excellent piece on Watts Up With That about the politicization of climate change pseudo-science (my characterization, not his).  This excerpt is centered on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but it illustrates the general, broad, and sole politicization of climate change pseudo-science [emphasis added].

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot survive. It was designed to achieve a deceptive result by limiting the research to only human causes of climate change. They effectively made reform or change impossible because each set of Reports is cumulative. That is, each Report simply adds new information to a very limited number of variables. The reality is you can only determine the human impact by knowing and understanding all the variables and mechanisms of natural climate. Most of the public think the IPCC look at climate and climate change in total and IPCC participants and promoters did nothing to dissuade them of that error. This is part of the proof that IPCC creators had a singular political objective for which natural variability was a problem. Without the political objective there is no need for a government agency like the IPCC even to determine natural climate and climate change.

Ball’s article is long-ish, but it’s well worth the read.

Four Pillars of a Health Care System?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal posited this in a Wednesday op-ed.

1. Provide a path to catastrophic health insurance for all Americans.

The WSJ then supports this with old saws: being covered generally leads to better medical results, health insurance is good for the wallet, and so on.  Then they want a government solution—while they carefully avoid saying how they would pay for it:

The ObamaCare replacement should make it possible for all people to get health insurance that provides coverage for basic prevention, like vaccines, and expensive medical care that exceeds, perhaps, $5,000 for individuals.

Those Americans who don’t get health insurance through employers, or Medicare and Medicaid, should be eligible for a refundable tax credit….

They don’t even say why catastrophic health insurance should be particularly targeted by Government.  They ignore an actual market solution for this: free market competition, accompanied with lower tax rates (which leave more money in people’s pockets), and no annual or income caps or requirements for high deductible insurance plans (and no requirement for any insurance plan at all) on Health Savings Accounts.  Folks are fully capable of making their own decisions about the structure of their health insurance plans without the Know Betters of Government holding them by the hand.  And insurance companies, in a fully competitive environment, are fully capable of developing and delivering the products actual customers want without Government mandates.  If that includes catastrophic insurance plans, those will appear.

2. Accommodate people with pre-existing health conditions.

See above regarding free markets.  Of course such coverage would come at a higher cost than other sorts of health coverages; the risk being transferred to the insurer is higher.  But even this risk is not certain.  Folks who’ve had a heart attack (or more than one), for instance, have a preexisting condition (unless a single heart attack has occurred sufficiently far in the past that a medical doctor (the patient’s, not the insurer’s or a Government hireling) says it’s a one-off and not preexisting), but not everyone who’s had heart attacks will have their next one simultaneously.  Even a preexisting condition can be amortized across time given a free market that allows pooling of [those who’ve had heart attacks] so that premiums can be adjusted to match the actual payout requirements, the actual risk—just like “ordinary” insurance plans.

So as long as someone remains insured, he should be allowed to move from employer coverage to the individual market without facing exclusions or higher premiums based on his health status.

This conflates two separate questions.  The preexisting question is addressed just above.  The mobility of an insuree (or someone who’d like to buy a health insurance plan) is separate: and yes, in a free market environment, an insuree would be able to take the plan he’s purchased, whether originally obtained through his employer (unless it was the employer who actually did the purchase and the premium payments) or bought on the individual market, with him wherever he went or to whatever job he moved.  The latter case, too, would reduce or eliminate the need for the new employer to offer health insurance coverage through his benefits program.

3. Allow broad access to health-savings accounts.

There should be a one-time federal tax credit to encourage all Americans to open an HSA and begin using it to pay for routine medical bills. And HSAs combined with high-deductible insurance should be incorporated directly into the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Another Government solution—again carefully unpaid for—and it’s much too timid.  I addressed HSAs and their market availability above.

4. Deregulate the market for medical services.

This is the only move necessary.  It’s the move to enable the free market solution.

Full stop.