The Not So Hottest 2014 Climate Scam

This week the Pravda Press had screaming headlines that 2014 was the “hottest year on record.”  However, if you dig into the numbers, the records referred to only go back to 1880.  They are the records of land based mercury thermometers.  Digging further, you find that the difference between 2014 and the next hottest year was under .04 degrees.  So I made this comment:

All years are above average here in Lake Wobegon. If the best liberals can do is measured in hundredths of a degree, we're dealing with statistical noise. The difference is well within the margin of error. No thermometer available in 1880 was accurate to .05 degrees. Even ignorant rednecks like me know this ain't a big enough difference to talk about. In making a big deal out of this, liberals sound like Pinky and the Brain have decided to use the threat of global warming to do what liberals try to do every night, try to take over the world.

In defending the “hottest on record” screaming headlines, some commenters tried to argue that statistically the error of observation is reduced by the large number of observations.  One commenter told me I needed to take a remedial course in statistics.  I had this response:

Me: MS Statistics 1972 University of Illinois. You: MSNBC. Your comment makes no statistical sense and ignores history. If individual readings are only accurate to .1 degree, no amount of multiple observations are going to improve the accuracy of your instruments. The observations come mainly from urban areas which have gotten hotter over time due to increases in paved area. The time span from 1880 to now is an eye blink in geologic time. Even if the readings are as incredibly accurate as you say, they prove no connection between industrial activity and temperature fluctuation. The models used to establish a connection have no statistical significance. The logical conclusion is that you are a disciple of Jonathan Gruber using complication to obscure a power grab (pun intended) of unprecedented proportions. I don't want to live under a dictatorship of East and West Coast Liberal idiots controlling all energy use and forcing rednecks back to horse and buggy technology. You guys are rich enough to pay for dikes to protect your property in the event that the oceans actually do rise. I see no reason I should have to subsidize the foolish superstitions of the 1% by paying exorbitant prices for alternative energy or doing without energy altogether.

At ths point, the liberal commenter complained that the above was a personal attack.  He also said he never watched MSNBC and didn’t know who Jonathan Gruber was.  As always in these arguments, liberal commenters refer to the sanctity of science and proclaim debate as unscientific.  So I hit back with this:

It would seem that you can dish it out but you can't take it. If you tell someone they are so ignorant they need to take a course to remediate their knowledge, that's a personal insult. If you get a response in kind, you should not be surprised. Jonathan Gruber designed Obamacare to be so complex nobody would figure out that it was really a tax increase. The "science" you are pushing is really a political program of increased centralized government control. If government controls all energy use, they control the entire economy with no checks or balances possible to keep them from becoming abusive. If your education was so narrowly focused on gender studies that you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you. Renewable energy is 11.2% of the total energy generated in the United States. There is no way we can depend on renewable energy for all of our energy needs in the near future. Forcing a rapid conversion to all renewable energy would be prohibitively expensive. The only way we might get to much lower emissions in the intermediate term is with nuclear power. However, tree huggers like you don't want that either. We're left with horses, which I can tell you from personal experience are not all that much fun to clean up after. You are a victim of group think. Whether you watch MSNBC or not, you really are spouting the party line on global warming. The models that predict increasing temperatures due to CO2 emissions are not statistically significant. Temperatures in the last 15-20 years have not moved in a statistically significant way. Math is hard for Liberals, but it still is there even if you ignore it. Just to be crystal clear, the burden of proof is that you have to show 1) a significant increase in temperature and 2) a direct provable link to burning fossil fuel. Since you haven't shown either one, you've got no case that would warrant scrapping the Constitution to save the planet. In order to remediate your total ignorance of economics, please consider watching some video here:

(This is a link to Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose PBS TV Series.  It is a great introduction to Supply Side Economics.)

http://www.freetochoose.tv/

This is the article I was reacting to:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011615-735156-2014-not-the-hottest-year-on-record.htm

Shredding the Constitution for Small Tactical Advantage

Last month the New Republic article linked below was bragging about how brilliant Obama’s executive order amnesty for illegal aliens was politically. In particular, the author thought that amnesty ruined Jeb Bush’s chances to win the White House. The problem is that our Dear Lear was willing to completely ignore the Constitution for fleeting tactical advantage over Republicans. If amnesty by executive order is legal, the next president can legalize drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge with an executive order.  If postponing the Employer Mandate tax collection in Obamacare is legal, the next president can decide he will only collect corporate taxes at a 25% rate instead of the 39% in the law passed by Congress and signed by the President.  So this executive order business is a threat to the separation of powers and can lead us quickly to banana republic style government, and I'm not talking about stylish summer clothing.  And the gain is so minimal that it's disturbing.  It's not like Republicans can't find issues beside immigration.  Just to pick a few areas at random, Democrats have only lies and excuses for their economic performance, lawless regulation and national security meltdown.  Democrats are moving as fast as possible toward their goal of making the whole country as big a financial and physical disaster as Detroit has become under their rule.  It's also not that Jeb Bush is going to win the nomination in a walk without beating a sitting Conservative Governor like Mike Pence or Bobby Jindahl or Scott Walker.  Since the Constitution is now a dead letter, maybe Jeb Bush is finished because our Dear Leader is going to sign a Bill of Attainder executive order barring all potential heirs of George W. Bush from office since everything is his fault.  (Joke hint for clueless liberals:  Bills of Attainder are prohibited in the US Constitution you are ignoring at the moment.)  This whole thing is mindless destruction for minimal temporary advantage.  The article's author does not seem to have any idea what's going on.  No wonder the New Republic is losing money hand over fist.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120571/jeb-bush-running-president-2016-boxed-immigration

Obama Afraid to Go To Paris?

In my Air Force days, we had a saying, "No guts, no glory." The administration did not have the guts to send any important people to this open air event because they are cowards. This administration has courage only when it refuses to negotiate with Republicans. It will negotiate with just about anyone else. Terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Mad Mullahs, nuclear proliferators and Russin backed Ukrainian Rebels who shoot down civilian airliners are all people this administration thinks it can deal with. The people the administration will negotiate with have one thing in common. They all are armed and extremely dangerous. Republicans, despite propaganda to the contrary, are not a serious physical threat. So they are perfect targets for a no negotiation stance. This is the most cowardly administration in history.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-republicans-inconsistent-attacks-on-obamas-paris-response/2015/01/12/bd223d0a-9aa8-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html

Democrats' Problems Dealing With Reality

This article in Politico (see link below) shows how Democrats have a problem seeing and dealing with reality. Their policies are destroying the economy and endangering the country. Oil and gas prices have come down in spite of Democrats' efforts to stop drilling, stop pipelines and limit emissions in the name of saving the planet from global warming. Unfortunately, their climate models don't match their data with any statistical significance, so we get expensive energy and Al Gore makes millions off of his Mean Green agenda. The end results of Liberal policies can be found in Detroit, where their one party rule lead to a spiral of decay and finally bankruptcy. The reason Liberals see a war on women and pervasive racism is that they really have nothing else to offer. As Mark "Uterus" Udall found out in Colorado, the war on women doesn't work anymore. The facts of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner refused to cooperate with the Liberal narrative. The evidence showed Brown was the aggressor. Brown tried to grab the officer's gun while the officer was inside his car and Brown was charging the officer on foot when the fatal shot was fired. The supervising police sergeant at Garner's arrest, a black woman, had to be edited out of the picture. The Garner arrest turned out to be a cigarette tax enforcement action, which got a lot of Conservatives to say that nobody should die for cigarette taxes and that big government requires intrusive tax enforcement. The election of Tim Scott, a Black Tea Party Republican, as Senator in South Carolina was not covered at all. The Liberal narrative says Republicans, the Tea Party and redneck whites in the South are all racist. Tim Scott couldn't possibly exist, so he had to be ignored. The President said Al Qaeda is on the run. So the Benghazi attack was a demonstration that turned into a riot, not an organized terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda affiliate. The Iraq War was over because the President said so. The administration then ignored ISIS until it got so big it overran over half of Iraq. This article reads like a pep talk by the coach of a 20 point underdog team before the big game. It ignores the insults and injuries Democrats have inflicted on angry white rednecks like me. Maybe they don't understand that why we are angry has a lot to do with what Democrats said and did to us.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-democrats-2016-blue-collar-unmarried-women-voters-114313.html