LONDON (March 5) -- Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper that says the case for man-made global warming is now "stronger than ever." The team put together the new set of evidence by comparing computer models of possible causes of climate change."
For those of you who may have missed it, the "evidence" is based on "computer models."
In doing further research, I have looked into the accuracy of "computer models" over a broad spectrum - models used in predicting hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic activity etc. According to the facts, "compter models" have been reasonably accurate only 6% of the time.
In other words, using computer models to provide supporting evidence of anything at all is as scientific as basing future predictions on astrolgy.
Ooops! Research indicates that astrolgy is accurate about 11% of the time. In other words, about twice as accurate as computer modeling.
Still, the "climate experts" still insist on basing their predictions on something only half as accurate as star-gazing.
That is not science. It is hocus-pocus.
Now that "Climate scientists have hit back at skeptics with the publication of a new paper ", I guess all I have to do is "publish a new paper" that says they are full of crapola, and that would be sufficient proof that they are full of it.
Sorry, GW hoaxsters, I'm afraid it will take a wee bit more than "publishing a new paper" and using computer models to convince intelligent people. But keep trying - you may actually come up with something that makes sense.
/
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Pre-Existing Conditions
Almost all politicians on both sides want to put an end to insurance companies denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions. And while that may seem altruistic, perhaps someone should look below the surface.
Let's say a person is diagnosed with cancer. He is not yet insured. Assuming insurers are no longer allowed to deny coverage, they would then be forced to insure this person. If the normal premium is $1000 per month, then the insurer is forced to receive $1000 per month and shell out $50,000 per month in medical costs. That is a loss of $49,000 per month - for just ONE person.
Since insurers will go bankrupt unless they recoup losses, guess what happens next? That's right - everyone else's premiums will go up - a lot - to cover those losses.
When the liberals try to tell us they can pass this health care bill and it would SAVE us money and NOT raise premiums, they are living in La-La Land, a place Nancy Pelosi is very familiar with.
And while we are on the subject of La-La Land, anyone who thinks we can add 30 million people into the waiting rooms, without also adding tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other staff, plus more facilities to perform their tasks (hospitals & clinics), and yet will still claim the quality of our health care will not suffer - well, La-La Land has a place for you, too. If you add 20% more patients without adding 20% more facilities, equipment and staff, the "quality of care" will no longer exist in America.
Yes, we need to make health care more affordable. But what we do NOT need is this travesty of socialism disguised as a health care bill.
/
Let's say a person is diagnosed with cancer. He is not yet insured. Assuming insurers are no longer allowed to deny coverage, they would then be forced to insure this person. If the normal premium is $1000 per month, then the insurer is forced to receive $1000 per month and shell out $50,000 per month in medical costs. That is a loss of $49,000 per month - for just ONE person.
Since insurers will go bankrupt unless they recoup losses, guess what happens next? That's right - everyone else's premiums will go up - a lot - to cover those losses.
When the liberals try to tell us they can pass this health care bill and it would SAVE us money and NOT raise premiums, they are living in La-La Land, a place Nancy Pelosi is very familiar with.
And while we are on the subject of La-La Land, anyone who thinks we can add 30 million people into the waiting rooms, without also adding tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and other staff, plus more facilities to perform their tasks (hospitals & clinics), and yet will still claim the quality of our health care will not suffer - well, La-La Land has a place for you, too. If you add 20% more patients without adding 20% more facilities, equipment and staff, the "quality of care" will no longer exist in America.
Yes, we need to make health care more affordable. But what we do NOT need is this travesty of socialism disguised as a health care bill.
/
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Recalls
Over the years there have been over 8 million vehicles recalled. Today it was announced that GM is recalling 1.3 million. Yet, to date, the only auto maker to be fried by Congress is Toyota. Why is that?
The reason for the discrimination against Toyota is POLITICS and POWER. Of all the automakers with factories in the U.S., Toyota is the one that does not cow-tow to the United Auto Workers Union. Because there is no UAW at Toyota, they are hated by the Union. They can also undersell other automakers because the costs that unions add to manufacturing is not present at Toyota.
Meanwhile, our Congress is mostly Democrat, and most Democrats receive a LOT of union money for their re-election campaigns. And it is the Democrat Congress that decided to take over GM, one of Toyota's biggest competitors.
And that is precisely why Toyota is under fire in Congress - Congress is CORRUPT. Congress is bought and paid for with union money. And Congress has a vested interest in the success of GM.
Toyota will be villified in the liberal press and in Congress until it is forced to either bring in the union, or face billion dollar losses from lawsuits that will increase Toyota's costs, and thereby force them to increase prices so GM will appear more competitive.
It's a stacked deck - liberals will not play without one.
/
The reason for the discrimination against Toyota is POLITICS and POWER. Of all the automakers with factories in the U.S., Toyota is the one that does not cow-tow to the United Auto Workers Union. Because there is no UAW at Toyota, they are hated by the Union. They can also undersell other automakers because the costs that unions add to manufacturing is not present at Toyota.
Meanwhile, our Congress is mostly Democrat, and most Democrats receive a LOT of union money for their re-election campaigns. And it is the Democrat Congress that decided to take over GM, one of Toyota's biggest competitors.
And that is precisely why Toyota is under fire in Congress - Congress is CORRUPT. Congress is bought and paid for with union money. And Congress has a vested interest in the success of GM.
Toyota will be villified in the liberal press and in Congress until it is forced to either bring in the union, or face billion dollar losses from lawsuits that will increase Toyota's costs, and thereby force them to increase prices so GM will appear more competitive.
It's a stacked deck - liberals will not play without one.
/
Experts
By Bill Vaughn
About those "experts"
I bought gold when it was $238 an ounce.
Ever since then, the "experts" have said gold will lose its value.
Two years ago, the experts reported in the NYT that gold would tank because no one had any money. But gold skyrocketed instead ($1200/oz)
Last month, the "experts" said in Daily Finance that gold would tank within days because the IMF is planning to sell 200 tons. Gold went up.
Last week, the "experts" again said gold would fall immediately and deeply because the Fed was raising interest rates. Gold kept climbing (and the Fed is not raising rates).
I'm not saying all experts are wrong. I'm just saying that most are, regardless of the subject matter, whether gold, the economy or global warming.
There is one expert I rely upon heavily, however, because he has seldom been wrong about the things he has studied. Myself.
I still own my gold (though I will not buy at these prices, neither will I sell, as gold has not yet topped). And my predictions on the state of the economy have been spot on, so far. As for global warming, more and more folks are beginning to see that hoax for what it has always been - faulty data presented by alarmists looking only to feather their own nests, either politically, financially or both.
Not that global warming is not real. Only that it does not matter, it will not harm us and is not caused by man's activities. The Earth has suffered warmer periods, and in each instance mankind thrived. The only thing we have to fear from the climate is the eventuality of global cooling, which will certainly occur at some point.
/
Monday, March 1, 2010
Spin Machine
Today's headline: "Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky stalls unemployment benefits for more than a million people."
Of course, that is not even close to the actual truth, but then, liberals don't have much use for the truth. Here is the real story...
Congress passed "Pay Go", requiring that they find ways to PAY for any expenditures they authorize. In the case of extended unemployment benefits, the Democrats want to extend payments (up to $10 billion) without having any way to pay for it.
Jim Bunning is all for the extension, but is only insisting that they fund it, and will block enactment until Congress actually decides to do their job.
But even then, no one on unemployment will see any interruption in benefits - there is already a temporary extension in place.
If more of our Congressional leaders would hold their own feet to the fire and arrange to actually come up with the money they spend, America would be better off. I say, "Kudos" to Congressman Bunning for standing up for an important principle - fiscal responsibility.
For the last two years everyone in America has been screaming bloody murder because Congress is not fiscally responsible. And now when a Congressman actually tries to be so, the Democrats try to turn him into some sort or pariah, or ogre. He is neither.
He is a hero. And those who try to paint him as anything less are nothing short of partisan hacks who hold their own interests to be more important than the interests of the American people.
/
Of course, that is not even close to the actual truth, but then, liberals don't have much use for the truth. Here is the real story...
Congress passed "Pay Go", requiring that they find ways to PAY for any expenditures they authorize. In the case of extended unemployment benefits, the Democrats want to extend payments (up to $10 billion) without having any way to pay for it.
Jim Bunning is all for the extension, but is only insisting that they fund it, and will block enactment until Congress actually decides to do their job.
But even then, no one on unemployment will see any interruption in benefits - there is already a temporary extension in place.
If more of our Congressional leaders would hold their own feet to the fire and arrange to actually come up with the money they spend, America would be better off. I say, "Kudos" to Congressman Bunning for standing up for an important principle - fiscal responsibility.
For the last two years everyone in America has been screaming bloody murder because Congress is not fiscally responsible. And now when a Congressman actually tries to be so, the Democrats try to turn him into some sort or pariah, or ogre. He is neither.
He is a hero. And those who try to paint him as anything less are nothing short of partisan hacks who hold their own interests to be more important than the interests of the American people.
/
Cornball Corn
Today in Politics Daily, David Corn, a far-left liberal of ill repute posted an article asking which presidents are smarter - Republicans or Democrats.
Like the fool he is, he centered his entire argument around the "health care summit", stating that neither of the Bush presidents, nor Reagan could have ever moderated such an event.
What hooey! Frankly, Emmett the Clown could have moderated that farce. First, Obama did a terrible job, often taking political jabs at the Republicans. Neither of the Bushes, and certainly not Reagan would have stooped to that level. But setting that aside...
It was "smart" Obama who steadfastly stated the "Surge" would never work. It was overly-intelligent Obama who said he had "campaigned in 57 states, with one left to go."
It was that mental genius, Bill Clinton, who got caught with a bimbo under his desk, keeping his other head busy. And it was Jimmy Carter who blew every attempt to free the hostages held in Iran for 400 days. Meanwhile, Reagan was in office one day and the hostages were released. And don't forget that picture of Carter hitting a swimming rabbit with his oar, fearing he was being attacked by a vicious animal. Yep - true genius.
And just for the record - Bush presented his college transcripts. Obama, to this day, has refused to do so. Usually such refusal is attributed to having something to hide. If his grades were so good, why does he refuse to make them public?
I don't know if Obama or Bush is the more intelligent. But I do know that Bush has a helluva lot more class. He has refused to attack or insult - or even comment on - Obama's policies, yet Obama blames Bush for everything, on a daily basis. Bush would never have given such crappy gifts to heads of state. He would never have taken liberties with the Queen. And he would never have insulted heads of state by returning their gifts. Unlike Obama, Bush figured the surge would work. And the lowest unemployment rate in history was during Bush's term, while the stock market hit record highs.
Bush is no genius, and he screwed some things up. That is not because he is stupid - it is because, just like Obama, Bush is a progressive. Bush just was not as AGGRESSIVELY or PASSIONATELY progressive. That, alone, tells me he is smarter than Obama.
/
Like the fool he is, he centered his entire argument around the "health care summit", stating that neither of the Bush presidents, nor Reagan could have ever moderated such an event.
What hooey! Frankly, Emmett the Clown could have moderated that farce. First, Obama did a terrible job, often taking political jabs at the Republicans. Neither of the Bushes, and certainly not Reagan would have stooped to that level. But setting that aside...
It was "smart" Obama who steadfastly stated the "Surge" would never work. It was overly-intelligent Obama who said he had "campaigned in 57 states, with one left to go."
It was that mental genius, Bill Clinton, who got caught with a bimbo under his desk, keeping his other head busy. And it was Jimmy Carter who blew every attempt to free the hostages held in Iran for 400 days. Meanwhile, Reagan was in office one day and the hostages were released. And don't forget that picture of Carter hitting a swimming rabbit with his oar, fearing he was being attacked by a vicious animal. Yep - true genius.
And just for the record - Bush presented his college transcripts. Obama, to this day, has refused to do so. Usually such refusal is attributed to having something to hide. If his grades were so good, why does he refuse to make them public?
I don't know if Obama or Bush is the more intelligent. But I do know that Bush has a helluva lot more class. He has refused to attack or insult - or even comment on - Obama's policies, yet Obama blames Bush for everything, on a daily basis. Bush would never have given such crappy gifts to heads of state. He would never have taken liberties with the Queen. And he would never have insulted heads of state by returning their gifts. Unlike Obama, Bush figured the surge would work. And the lowest unemployment rate in history was during Bush's term, while the stock market hit record highs.
Bush is no genius, and he screwed some things up. That is not because he is stupid - it is because, just like Obama, Bush is a progressive. Bush just was not as AGGRESSIVELY or PASSIONATELY progressive. That, alone, tells me he is smarter than Obama.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)