Maybe the people of Massachusetts were expressing a referendum on the policies of the administration and its allies in Congress. Maybe it was just a case of a horrible candidate versus a decent candidate. Maybe they weren’t aware of the impact this election may have had on all of our futures. It doesn’t matter. The result is the same. I’m sure there are opinion pieces and articles across the web and in the media with titles like “The Boston Massacre”, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World....”Something....something....something...Boston Tea Party” and other historical references meant to evoke images of a revolutionary event in Massachusetts. It’s predicable, but in this case, not unwarranted. In fact, I’d like to see this event get a name all its own. I wont presume to provide one here, but I will give a description of what I saw. Maybe someone else can name it.
The group that took control of both houses of Congress, and the White House in 2008 was not just the Democrats. It is a particular faction of the Democrat party. Some would call them liberal or progressives, but those are labels, and labels can change. The important thing is the vision. This faction truly believes that a central authority, comprised of the best and the brightest (as determined by the best and the brightest), could better provide for everyones needs and desires than a free market. The only things standing in the way are the Constitution and the free markets.
The previous administration handed them control of the finincial industry, the auto industry and had already declared a financial disaster looming, of ?Biblical proportions. They had a blank check for both cash and legislation. They belonged to the party that had veto-proof majorities in the House and the Senate, had the majority of Governors, many major media outlets in their corner and the full support of most of Hollywood and University staff.
Then, liberal lion, Senator Ted Kennedy dies. A temporary seat warmer is appointed to save a spot for the Democrat that will be chosen by the party machinery to take Senator Kennedy’s place. The honor is given to Martha Coakley, a loyal soldier who will vote exactly as she is supposed to. It’s not as if the Republicans are going to present a challenge in Masschusetts. But alas, Coakley turns out to be a train wreck. She runs a horrible campaign and manages to verbally offend almost every interest group in the state. Her record as attorney general was less than stellar. Meanwhile, back at the Republican camp. There’s no point wasting a big name contender on this race. Republicans aren’t going to win the Kennedy seat. Go ahead and let an actual human being carry the banner. As it turned out, Scott Brown did strike a chord with real people. So much so that he breezed past the Democrat before the party knew what hit them.
The Repoblicans have not taken over Congress. But the one-party super majority is over. Republicans can’t be completely ignored and perhaps more importantly, Democrats are going to take a much closer look at the what’s going on within their own party.
What if the administration and its allies had proceeded without hinderance? The President promised to “fundamentally transform America”. We had administration officials suggesting that the media be much more tightly controlled. Chavez’s takeover of Venezuela was praised as a great achievement. Chairman Mao was quoted as a favorite philosopher. I don’t think most people pay near as much attention to these things as I do. I’m just telling you what I saw. Many new policy initiatives have been killed before they got off the ground, simply because people found out about them, and to date, we still have freedom of speech. We the people still have weapons at our disposal. The most formidable are awareness and the truth. Bad ideas are not exclusive to one party. We must pay attention and hold our elected officials accountable, regardless of party. This election was one in a series of roadblocks on the way to Utopia, and it’s a doozy. But it was close.
Government oversight of the nation’s health care industry was the holy grail. There’s an old American saying; “Your right to swing your arms stops at my nose.”. It means that if your behavior does me no harm, I have no legitimate objection. It’s a Cliff Notes version of individual rights in a free society. If you make health care a national mandate, to be provided by the government, you have provided a “legitimate objection” for just about any behavior. If everyone is being taxed to provide for everyone’s health care, than everyone’s behavior has a direct impact on the financial welfare of everyone else. It would be lawsuit heaven and a license for the government to legislate everything.
I’ve often said in my posts, although I didn’t like the way the country was headed, I remain optimistic because this country has the capacity to turn on a dime. I think we’re making that pivot. Enough people at least agreed that something is not right, that they broke party ranks and decided to pull the hand break.
This battle, that many are still unaware of, is not between Republicans and Democrats. It’s between individualists and collectivists. The collectivists are vastly outnumbered, but they had stealth going for them. The problem is, once you reach the top, you can’t operate in the shadows anymore, and ultimately, the people still rule here.
Thank you Massachusettes.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti Relief Requests Illustrate Core Capitalist Principal
Both government and private relief agencies are asking people to send aid to Haiti in the form of cash, rather than stuff. Why? Because, especially in a situation where the distribution channels are tough at best and non-existent at worst, it's far more efficient to have the end user determine what they need than to deliver goods and hope they can make use of them.
This is true of non-profits and government agencies handling a catastrophe and it's true of individuals in a free market. Keeping the focus on Haiti and natural disasters, perhaps we could see a new type of disaster relief organization emerge.
What if there were a non-profit relief agency who's mission were to enable commerce at the street level? It could provide things like safe storage for goods and currency; a safe place to buy and sell goods, where you could set up a table or a box, display your goods and not have to worry about getting beat up or shot; safe transportation; safe meeting areas, some kind of dispute resolution service and other things we often take for granted that would enable trade at an individual level. It could work closely with government and other relief agencies to police fraud and theft in its marketplace(s). Essentially, it would be a security service, but primarily focused on securing safe, free trade among individuals.
This would not take the place of other forms of relief, it would be in addition to it. Of course, you couldn't cover the whole country rapidly. But even a single, safe marketplace would enhance the efficient distribution of basic necessities and other goods.
Markets and economies are all about trade and resource distribution. Disaster relief efforts have demonstrated that the more options you put in the hands of the end user, the better the result and the more efficient the distribution. Government, non-profits and free markets all have legitimate, productive roles in a free society. We need to unleash the potential of free trade at all levels, not to the exclusion of everything else, but for the benefit of everything else.
This is true of non-profits and government agencies handling a catastrophe and it's true of individuals in a free market. Keeping the focus on Haiti and natural disasters, perhaps we could see a new type of disaster relief organization emerge.
What if there were a non-profit relief agency who's mission were to enable commerce at the street level? It could provide things like safe storage for goods and currency; a safe place to buy and sell goods, where you could set up a table or a box, display your goods and not have to worry about getting beat up or shot; safe transportation; safe meeting areas, some kind of dispute resolution service and other things we often take for granted that would enable trade at an individual level. It could work closely with government and other relief agencies to police fraud and theft in its marketplace(s). Essentially, it would be a security service, but primarily focused on securing safe, free trade among individuals.
This would not take the place of other forms of relief, it would be in addition to it. Of course, you couldn't cover the whole country rapidly. But even a single, safe marketplace would enhance the efficient distribution of basic necessities and other goods.
Markets and economies are all about trade and resource distribution. Disaster relief efforts have demonstrated that the more options you put in the hands of the end user, the better the result and the more efficient the distribution. Government, non-profits and free markets all have legitimate, productive roles in a free society. We need to unleash the potential of free trade at all levels, not to the exclusion of everything else, but for the benefit of everything else.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Time to embrace proper profiling at U.S. airports
Is there any bigger prize for a Jihadist terrorist than an Isreali plane or airport? Probably not. Yet, in thirty years there has not been a successful attack on an El Al plane nor has a plane from the Tel Aviv airport been hijacked. One would think that in a post-9/11 world, we might want to consult with Isreali airport security and see if we could pick up some pointers.
However, there is a great fear of profiling here in the USA. I don’t believe it’s so much a matter of being afraid of being labelled “racist” as the fear of liability. Isreali airport security profiliing is not about race. It’s about behavior. Obviously a 22-year old from Saudi is going to attract a bit more attention than a 64-year old Irishman. But the Isreali’s don’t strip search every 20 something Arab. It’s not necessary and would only serve to alienate paying customers. What they do focus on is conversation, speech patterns, facial expressions, eye movement, body language. Security is both uniformed and covert. Agents engage people in trivial conversation. They are trained to be attentive to things that don’t make sense. Ask a similar question twice during the course of a lengthy conversation. Get two different answers. That’s a red flag. It’s similar to the type of security at major casinos. Everyone is being watched by someone, yet most aren’t conscious of it.
So why don’t we employ some of the same techniques here??Because it would necessitate the most feared thing in the American system of justice; the judgment call. Here in the most litigious society on Earth, the most dangerous thing you can do is employ logic and reason on your own. In Isreal, if you’re pulled out of line and subjected to higher scrutiny and turn out to be innocent, you get your things together and proceed to your flight. Here, you call your attorney and start preparing the lawsuit, and you’ll probably win or at least settle out of court. So, we attempt to make all security procedures a matter of uncontestable fact checking or strict adherance to detailed procedures. We confiscate shampoo, remove shoes and ban nail clippers. Furthermore, there’s no rhyme or reason to who we subject to higher scrutiny. The more random the better. We don’t want to be accused of singling somebody out. Then we’d have to explain our reasoning. Reasoning is frowned upon.
The other drawback is training. You can’t just hire somebody off the street, give them a two-week orientation and expect them to be an expert profiler. Learning to read the “tells” of a would-be terrorist takes continous and long-term training, as well as sound reasoning ability. It’s expensive and time consuming. High tech equipment is also expensive, but much easier to deploy quickly. That’s why it is favored. Also, there is less liability exposure from a false positive from a machine, than from a human being.
Another, I think lesser, factor is that there are a lot of people in America who have convinced themselves that the Jihadists only want to destroy us because they don’t really understand us. It’s an appealing prospect. It simplifies the situation considerably. All we have to do is show the Jihadists how cool we really are, and everything will be groovy. The fact is, the Jihadists see the direction that the “civilized” countries are taking the world in and they don’t like it one bit. If Mr. Rogers were our president, they’d still want to take him out. Democracy, equal rights, tolerance of opposing views and lifestyles are simply not consistent with the world they’d like to create, and they never will be. Lax security in the name of demonstrating our civility is just going to get more people killed.
We can effectively employ profiling without being racist and without turning air travel into shear torture. We need to consult with our Isreali friends, casino security experts and perhaps some of the most successful poker players in the world. Bombs don’t blow up planes. Crazy people do.
However, there is a great fear of profiling here in the USA. I don’t believe it’s so much a matter of being afraid of being labelled “racist” as the fear of liability. Isreali airport security profiliing is not about race. It’s about behavior. Obviously a 22-year old from Saudi is going to attract a bit more attention than a 64-year old Irishman. But the Isreali’s don’t strip search every 20 something Arab. It’s not necessary and would only serve to alienate paying customers. What they do focus on is conversation, speech patterns, facial expressions, eye movement, body language. Security is both uniformed and covert. Agents engage people in trivial conversation. They are trained to be attentive to things that don’t make sense. Ask a similar question twice during the course of a lengthy conversation. Get two different answers. That’s a red flag. It’s similar to the type of security at major casinos. Everyone is being watched by someone, yet most aren’t conscious of it.
So why don’t we employ some of the same techniques here??Because it would necessitate the most feared thing in the American system of justice; the judgment call. Here in the most litigious society on Earth, the most dangerous thing you can do is employ logic and reason on your own. In Isreal, if you’re pulled out of line and subjected to higher scrutiny and turn out to be innocent, you get your things together and proceed to your flight. Here, you call your attorney and start preparing the lawsuit, and you’ll probably win or at least settle out of court. So, we attempt to make all security procedures a matter of uncontestable fact checking or strict adherance to detailed procedures. We confiscate shampoo, remove shoes and ban nail clippers. Furthermore, there’s no rhyme or reason to who we subject to higher scrutiny. The more random the better. We don’t want to be accused of singling somebody out. Then we’d have to explain our reasoning. Reasoning is frowned upon.
The other drawback is training. You can’t just hire somebody off the street, give them a two-week orientation and expect them to be an expert profiler. Learning to read the “tells” of a would-be terrorist takes continous and long-term training, as well as sound reasoning ability. It’s expensive and time consuming. High tech equipment is also expensive, but much easier to deploy quickly. That’s why it is favored. Also, there is less liability exposure from a false positive from a machine, than from a human being.
Another, I think lesser, factor is that there are a lot of people in America who have convinced themselves that the Jihadists only want to destroy us because they don’t really understand us. It’s an appealing prospect. It simplifies the situation considerably. All we have to do is show the Jihadists how cool we really are, and everything will be groovy. The fact is, the Jihadists see the direction that the “civilized” countries are taking the world in and they don’t like it one bit. If Mr. Rogers were our president, they’d still want to take him out. Democracy, equal rights, tolerance of opposing views and lifestyles are simply not consistent with the world they’d like to create, and they never will be. Lax security in the name of demonstrating our civility is just going to get more people killed.
We can effectively employ profiling without being racist and without turning air travel into shear torture. We need to consult with our Isreali friends, casino security experts and perhaps some of the most successful poker players in the world. Bombs don’t blow up planes. Crazy people do.
Monday, January 4, 2010
DMV Purgatory, a health care reform preview?
I decided to go register my new (used) Jeep today. I figured an hour or so, early in the afternoon, leaving plenty of time for other errands. So my son Max and I headed out. There was a line going out the door. I got number 708. They were on number 640 at the time, and there were two other, higher priority categories; military and renewals.
Before I start venting, let me be clear. This is not about the folks who work at the DMV. It's just an illustration of the nature of an operation in which customer service is of no consequence. There's no downside to frustrated customers. It's not like you can take your business elsewhere.
Anyway, after an hour and a half of waiting, I noticed the ATM machine. Why is there an ATM machine in here? These guys take in hundreds of dollars per minute. They must take plastic. I'd better ask. Nope. Only cash or checks, but don't worry, there's an ATM. It's not actually working, but if it were.... No problem. At the rate they were going I could drive to any ATM in the state and still be back before my number was called. So, off to the nearest gas station. The first one's ATM was also out of service. The second one worked. Back to the DMV. They had served exactly one more person in my category by the time I got back. Another hour and a half and my number finally got called. I felt like I'd won the lotto. That is, until the nice lady informed me that I needed to get a VIN verification first, since I bought a car with out of state plates. "Don't worry", she assured me, "we're open until 5pm". So, off to the nearest car dealership for a VIN verification. What does that entail? Well, the nice young lady copied some information from my title (the same title I had handed the lady at the DMV) onto a different piece of paper, asked me to read off my odometer numbers and charged my $20. She never so much as popped the hood. Back to the DMV. At least I didn't have to wait in line again. Just three hours and 45 minutes after my arrival, I left with my new plates. The title will arrive by mail in 6-8 weeks. Total cost, about $140 (the car is 16 years old).
How would a for-profit, competitive environment have been different? First of all, there were about 6 to 8 unmanned stations. A competitive enterprise would have done the math and figured that if each employee is taking in well over $1,000 per hour, and you have room for more employees, it's probably worth the expense. Also, how about on-site VIN verification. It's a five minute transaction at $20/pop. Mo money, mo money, mo money. These things even make sense from a political standpoint. How much productivity (and therefore tax revenue) is lost due to people spending half a workday at the DMV?
I suppose there's an upside, if we turn health care into a non-profit bureaucracy. We wont have to worry about people running to the hospital or the doctor's office every time they have the sniffles. If it's as torturous as the DMV, they'll have to drag people to their health care provider, kicking and screaming, or wait until they lose consciousness.
Before I start venting, let me be clear. This is not about the folks who work at the DMV. It's just an illustration of the nature of an operation in which customer service is of no consequence. There's no downside to frustrated customers. It's not like you can take your business elsewhere.
Anyway, after an hour and a half of waiting, I noticed the ATM machine. Why is there an ATM machine in here? These guys take in hundreds of dollars per minute. They must take plastic. I'd better ask. Nope. Only cash or checks, but don't worry, there's an ATM. It's not actually working, but if it were.... No problem. At the rate they were going I could drive to any ATM in the state and still be back before my number was called. So, off to the nearest gas station. The first one's ATM was also out of service. The second one worked. Back to the DMV. They had served exactly one more person in my category by the time I got back. Another hour and a half and my number finally got called. I felt like I'd won the lotto. That is, until the nice lady informed me that I needed to get a VIN verification first, since I bought a car with out of state plates. "Don't worry", she assured me, "we're open until 5pm". So, off to the nearest car dealership for a VIN verification. What does that entail? Well, the nice young lady copied some information from my title (the same title I had handed the lady at the DMV) onto a different piece of paper, asked me to read off my odometer numbers and charged my $20. She never so much as popped the hood. Back to the DMV. At least I didn't have to wait in line again. Just three hours and 45 minutes after my arrival, I left with my new plates. The title will arrive by mail in 6-8 weeks. Total cost, about $140 (the car is 16 years old).
How would a for-profit, competitive environment have been different? First of all, there were about 6 to 8 unmanned stations. A competitive enterprise would have done the math and figured that if each employee is taking in well over $1,000 per hour, and you have room for more employees, it's probably worth the expense. Also, how about on-site VIN verification. It's a five minute transaction at $20/pop. Mo money, mo money, mo money. These things even make sense from a political standpoint. How much productivity (and therefore tax revenue) is lost due to people spending half a workday at the DMV?
I suppose there's an upside, if we turn health care into a non-profit bureaucracy. We wont have to worry about people running to the hospital or the doctor's office every time they have the sniffles. If it's as torturous as the DMV, they'll have to drag people to their health care provider, kicking and screaming, or wait until they lose consciousness.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Is Wall Street slitting its own throat?
So, I'm watching the FOX business block, and the champions and defenders of free market capitalism each dutifully rail against government excess, new regulations, subsidies and take-overs. Yet in the final two-minutes, when it's time to recommend a stock, they invariably select a company that stands to benefit from new regulation, government excess and take-overs.
In 2009 we got bail outs, stimulus, a tripling of the deficit, industry take-overs, cap and trade passed the house, the health care take-over passed both houses of Congress and the market soared.
It seems as if the top 20% of earners in this country actually believes that they can keep on truckin' without the bottom 80%. Their words say to the government "No, no, no." but their actions say "Go, go, go.".
The overt defenders of the new world order can't even bring themselves to decry multi-million dollar get-aways for government employees to hang around hotels and talk about their new contracts. The bribery that takes place in legislation is brushed off as "business as usual" which means, we shouldn't care. All news is good news so long as their favored party remains in charge. It reminds me of the prisoner in "Life of Brian" hanging upside down in shackles, talking about how great the Romans are.
I think that most people know that we are totally abandoning the founding principals of the United States. Many will even state opposition to it if you ask them. However, many of the same people believe they're going to benefit somehow in the short term, so they don't put up much of a fuss about it.
My optimistic side likes to point out that we still have the capacity to turn things around on a dime in this country. My pessimistic side observes that Rome was not destroyed in a day. There were multiple generations of misery before the once mighty empire finally dissipated onto the ash-heap of history. Are we headed for a similar fate? It's entirely possible.
I would urge all you market moguls to put your money where your principals are. Never mind the short-term trade and invest in freedom, or at least refrain from investing in statism. Money talks. Speak up!
In 2009 we got bail outs, stimulus, a tripling of the deficit, industry take-overs, cap and trade passed the house, the health care take-over passed both houses of Congress and the market soared.
It seems as if the top 20% of earners in this country actually believes that they can keep on truckin' without the bottom 80%. Their words say to the government "No, no, no." but their actions say "Go, go, go.".
The overt defenders of the new world order can't even bring themselves to decry multi-million dollar get-aways for government employees to hang around hotels and talk about their new contracts. The bribery that takes place in legislation is brushed off as "business as usual" which means, we shouldn't care. All news is good news so long as their favored party remains in charge. It reminds me of the prisoner in "Life of Brian" hanging upside down in shackles, talking about how great the Romans are.
I think that most people know that we are totally abandoning the founding principals of the United States. Many will even state opposition to it if you ask them. However, many of the same people believe they're going to benefit somehow in the short term, so they don't put up much of a fuss about it.
My optimistic side likes to point out that we still have the capacity to turn things around on a dime in this country. My pessimistic side observes that Rome was not destroyed in a day. There were multiple generations of misery before the once mighty empire finally dissipated onto the ash-heap of history. Are we headed for a similar fate? It's entirely possible.
I would urge all you market moguls to put your money where your principals are. Never mind the short-term trade and invest in freedom, or at least refrain from investing in statism. Money talks. Speak up!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The New Transparency of Government
During the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama promised a new era of transparency in government. He said that bills would be debated in the open, even on CSPAN. Everyone would have their due input and the public would be able to witness the process from beginning to end. Well, it hasn't exactly gone down that way, but thanks to ever progressing communication and information technology, the motives and character of our elected officials has never been more transparent.
2009 was the year of the crisis. Every major piece of legislation was an emergency. So much so that they had to be written behind closed doors by a handful of chosen legislators and policy makers. When they were finally released, there was no time for debate, or even for most members of Congress to read the bills before voting on them. Stimulus, bail outs, climate change and health care were all deemed way too important to be subjected to the whims of the common citizen.
This approach may have worked in the past. There was a time, not so long ago, when there were only three major television networks. Each had a half hour of national news per night, airing at roughly the same time. The average American was provided perhaps ten minutes of information per day on what was happening in Washington D.C.. Today, you can literally keep tabs on our elected officials 24/7. Deals might be made in private, but the fact that the deal making is happening is as plain as day. Whether its scientists fudging data to promote their pre-conceived conclusions or Congress members getting huge paydays for their states in exchange for their votes, the public is fully aware and tuned in and none too happy about it.
Big government proponents are embarking on a power grab agenda. The plan was to rush everything through so that, by the time Joe Six Pack realized what was happening, the deals would be done, the game would be changed, and eventually we'd all get used to the idea that the government is going to tell us what to do and when and how to do it. The problem they're having is that tactics that worked even 3 or 4 years ago, no longer work today. Releasing an important piece of news on Friday evening no longer means it wont garner major scrutiny. You can't just make ridiculous statements like the center of the Earth is "millions of degrees" or the polar ice cap is going to "disappear within 7 years" and not expect people to take 5 minutes on Google to check your facts. You can't just tell people "Relax, we know what we're doing" and hope we don't ask for details. Technology has made it possible for government to disseminate information to almost everyone in real time, and we want to know exactly what they're up to.
Despite their best efforts, our government is becoming more and more transparent. They are currently promoting government by the state, of the state and for the state. This aggression will not stand. George Orwell had it backwards. Big Brother, we're watching you.
2009 was the year of the crisis. Every major piece of legislation was an emergency. So much so that they had to be written behind closed doors by a handful of chosen legislators and policy makers. When they were finally released, there was no time for debate, or even for most members of Congress to read the bills before voting on them. Stimulus, bail outs, climate change and health care were all deemed way too important to be subjected to the whims of the common citizen.
This approach may have worked in the past. There was a time, not so long ago, when there were only three major television networks. Each had a half hour of national news per night, airing at roughly the same time. The average American was provided perhaps ten minutes of information per day on what was happening in Washington D.C.. Today, you can literally keep tabs on our elected officials 24/7. Deals might be made in private, but the fact that the deal making is happening is as plain as day. Whether its scientists fudging data to promote their pre-conceived conclusions or Congress members getting huge paydays for their states in exchange for their votes, the public is fully aware and tuned in and none too happy about it.
Big government proponents are embarking on a power grab agenda. The plan was to rush everything through so that, by the time Joe Six Pack realized what was happening, the deals would be done, the game would be changed, and eventually we'd all get used to the idea that the government is going to tell us what to do and when and how to do it. The problem they're having is that tactics that worked even 3 or 4 years ago, no longer work today. Releasing an important piece of news on Friday evening no longer means it wont garner major scrutiny. You can't just make ridiculous statements like the center of the Earth is "millions of degrees" or the polar ice cap is going to "disappear within 7 years" and not expect people to take 5 minutes on Google to check your facts. You can't just tell people "Relax, we know what we're doing" and hope we don't ask for details. Technology has made it possible for government to disseminate information to almost everyone in real time, and we want to know exactly what they're up to.
Despite their best efforts, our government is becoming more and more transparent. They are currently promoting government by the state, of the state and for the state. This aggression will not stand. George Orwell had it backwards. Big Brother, we're watching you.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Latest on the Global Warming scam
Reality has taken another swipe at the religion of Global Warming. The Global Warming cult is not just annoying, they may potentially deal a devastating blow to economies and freedom worldwide based on the premise that man-made carbon emmisions are building up in the atmosphere and bringing about catastrophic global warming. Mother nature begs to differ.
A new study published online in Geophysical Research Letters, states: “New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.”
In plain English, the oceans and land are absorbing our carbon emissions as fast as we can put them out. The catastophic greenhouse scenario is not happening. From PhysOrg.com: “The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.”
In other words this study deals with reality, whereas the nightmare scenarios are based on commonly held belief.
There is some confusion among scientists, particularly those seeking new grants to combat global warming, as to why the atmosphere is not absorbing the CO2. I’m not a scientist, but I know that mixtures have saturation points. When you stir salt into a glass of water, and continue to add salt, there will come a point where the salt will no longer dissolve into the mixture and you’ll simply get a bunch of salt resting on the bottom of the glass. My unprofessional guess would be that the atmosphere has absorbed about all the CO2 it is capable of absorbing. That’s a good thing. The Earth is recycling our carbon for us.
As you read this, the United Nations is conducting a Climate Change Conference, where world leaders will debate what to do about the non-existent build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Proposals include payments from countries like the United States to developing countries which emit less carbon; a carbon-debt system, which would be enforced by a newly formed, unelected, global governing body. Here at home, Congress is attempting to pass the infamous “Cap and Trade” bill, which will enrich traders, at our expense, and accomplish very little else.
It’s not that good information is not available to the powers that be. Global Warming or Climate Change is just the most recent vehicle to drive the real agenda; world government. If this crisis comes apart at the seams, they’ll find a new one. It’s never been about protecting you. It’s always been about controlling you.
More info: http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html
A new study published online in Geophysical Research Letters, states: “New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.”
In plain English, the oceans and land are absorbing our carbon emissions as fast as we can put them out. The catastophic greenhouse scenario is not happening. From PhysOrg.com: “The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.”
In other words this study deals with reality, whereas the nightmare scenarios are based on commonly held belief.
There is some confusion among scientists, particularly those seeking new grants to combat global warming, as to why the atmosphere is not absorbing the CO2. I’m not a scientist, but I know that mixtures have saturation points. When you stir salt into a glass of water, and continue to add salt, there will come a point where the salt will no longer dissolve into the mixture and you’ll simply get a bunch of salt resting on the bottom of the glass. My unprofessional guess would be that the atmosphere has absorbed about all the CO2 it is capable of absorbing. That’s a good thing. The Earth is recycling our carbon for us.
As you read this, the United Nations is conducting a Climate Change Conference, where world leaders will debate what to do about the non-existent build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Proposals include payments from countries like the United States to developing countries which emit less carbon; a carbon-debt system, which would be enforced by a newly formed, unelected, global governing body. Here at home, Congress is attempting to pass the infamous “Cap and Trade” bill, which will enrich traders, at our expense, and accomplish very little else.
It’s not that good information is not available to the powers that be. Global Warming or Climate Change is just the most recent vehicle to drive the real agenda; world government. If this crisis comes apart at the seams, they’ll find a new one. It’s never been about protecting you. It’s always been about controlling you.
More info: http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)