Global Warmers Demand Consensus Is Enough : Science Is Not Consensus!

The bottom line in scientific research is there cannot be any consensus in science, only facts that can be proven by collected data and analysis. If the facts in a case are just 'belief or theory' based on computer models that have been proven wrong, then the case in question can only be judged as speculation, and speculation is not science.

Global warming due to the influence of man-made interference with mother nature is hyperbole with the intent to install fear in people that are not paying attention, and there fore easy marks to gain an advantage and access to tax revenues for more 'research'.

Believe, money is the 'mothers milk' of politics and research. Some research is founded on legitimate  claims for the public good and can show positive results, but in many cases like global warming or man-made climate change, their basis for demanding support is based on fear and intimidation.

Need more evidence? How many decades have the 'warmers' demanded if we don't pay for more research we will all be dead by end of the decade? Why aren't we all dead and why hasn't anything changed from the way it was 30 years ago?

Is There Really a 97 Percent Consensus on Global Warming?
Source: Michael Stroup, "The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming," Energy and Environment: Clearing the Air Blog, National Center for Policy Analysis, July 30, 2014.

August 1, 2014

Climate change proponents routinely cite the "scientific consensus" that surrounds anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. But NCPA Senior Fellow Michael Stroup explains where that "scientific consensus" comes from and why the numbers are unreliable.

In 2013, a group of scientists published a study in Environmental Research Letters entitled, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." The study reviewed the abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers dealing with global warming and climate change. According to climate change activists, the study is proof that 97 percent of scientists in the climate research community agree that global warming is human-caused.

Except, explains Stroup, that the study did not make that conclusion. In fact:

• The study examined more than 11,944 peer-reviewed articles published from 1991 to 2011.
• The researchers tracked which studies stated an opinion on human-caused global warming and which did not. Of those that did state an opinion, the researchers determined whether the reports supported, rejected or were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
• Of the studies examined, 66.4 percent of the abstracts expressed no position whatsoever on human-caused global warming.
• Of the abstracts that did express an opinion on human-caused warming, 97.1 percent endorsed the notion that it was human-caused.

Stroup likens the 97 percent claim to a survey of 10,000 ice cream lovers. Imagine a survey that asked respondents what their preferred ice cream brand was, but more than half of those surveyed do not respond to the question. If 97 percent of those who did respond to the question report that their favorite ice cream is Haagen Dazs, asks Stroup, is that proof that all ice cream lovers support the consensus view that Haagen Dazs is the best ice cream?

Stroup cautions policymakers to engage in logical analysis when crafting environmental policies, not spin misleading statistics.
 

Tea Party Ideology - Small Govnmt Agree w/ Occupy Idealogy, Corp Too Big

I believe this is accurate to a point. The difference is occupy terrorist have no concept of what the Tea Party stands for, let alone have anything in common other then big government and big corporations do not mix.

ObamaCare Daily Failures : Citizens Pushing Back

Ever wonder how the Affordable Care Act is working out for us little people? Take a look at this chart to understand, as the weeks roll by people are finding ObamaCare more intrusive and unworkable as they become more knowledgeable about how this works, and as a result more unhappy.

But will the voters deicide to make a change to solve the problem, only time will tell.

Power Corrupts : Power Unchecked - Destructive

Usually the discussion about wealth centers on those that have it and those that don't, and then those that will do anything to get it.

Don't be mistaken, it's about power as well and those that want power know they will get power if they can get the money that buys influence.

One follows the other.

The real problem is how one uses the money and power when they finally accumulate enough to weld real power, like being in a position to effect out comes for millions of people. The possibilities for corruption are endless.

As the saying goes, 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Odds-On Favorite To Win : Liberalism Can Be Cured (Usually)

I believe there is an unwritten law that states if you find yourself voting democrat every election no matter the circumstances, it can be determined your in a select group of individual that are infected with the nearly incurable disease know as 'progressive liberalism'.

 

Individuals with this disease have been know to escape the effects of this calamity, but it might take years of concentrated effort without daily injections of common sense. One of the best ways to get these injections is from the 'Doctor of Democracy', Rush Limbaugh, who will administer the need medicine for free, all you have to do turn on the radio and listen daily  for an estimated six weeks.

 

Now this isn't an absolute cure as the disease of liberalism has been known to have a genetic effect, which mean, if the disease has had a prolonged time period to effect the genes, there is no cure, you are what is known in the medial community as a 'mutant'.

 

But don't despair, never give up the fight to rid your self of the catastrophic effects of liberalism in your life, keep listening to Rush and the possibility of recovery increases every day. Good luck!

 

We all wish you the very best of everything in your new life with common sense.

 

(Author Unknown) but knows a thing or two)

Think about!!! the odds of obama telling the truth are 1 in 17 trillion!!!!

The odds of winning the Florida lottery are 1 in 22,957,480.
The odds of winning the Powerball is 1 in 175,223,510.
The odds of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 258,890,850.

The odds of a disk drive failing in any given month are roughly one in 36.
The odds of two different drives failing in the same month are roughly one
in 36 squared, or 1 in about 1,300. The odds of three drives failing in the
same month is 36 cubed or 1 in 46,656.

The odds of seven different drives failing in the same month (like what
happened at the IRS when they received a letter asking about emails
targeting conservative and pro Israeli groups) is
37 to the 7th power = 1 in 78,664,164,096. (that's over 78 Billion) In other
words, the odds are greater that you will win the Florida Lottery 342 times
than having those seven IRS hard drives crashing in the same month.

And, the odds against a Democrat politician telling the truth are even
higher.

WSJ Article Says Obama 'A Dummy' : Not Obsessed? Not Calulating?

This observation by the Wall Street Journal is on the money. But is he a dummy or is he more calculating and obsessed with "fundamentally changing America" as he stated in a speech before the 2008 election?

Given Mr Obama's life from the beginning, educated in Muslim school and living all those early informative years with his father, a communist that hated the West, especially Britain when they lived in Kenya and Indonesia, little is left to the imagination as to why Mr Obama, and the progressive socialist democrat party, is knowingly and systematically dividing the country with the intent of destruction.

Is he a dummy, ignorant, or does he know exactly what he is doing?

WSJ calls Obama a Dummy?
Wall Street Journal Sizes Up Obama

A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America. Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Alan Caruba:

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

 In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author. 

 His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal. He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital.

 How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before? He out maneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.                                                          

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat. The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

 Now, 5 full years into his presidency, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters. Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain. The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

 Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues. Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot. He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America.

 He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth. Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

 When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden. We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States. 

                                                          

                                                           

Tax Proposal for 80% Rate on Income : Pikletty Not From Around Here

It appears that Mr Piketty is living on a different planet where the human mind is not connected to anything that resembles the primal need to be resourceful or productive.

I wonder as well if Mr Piketty has read any information just how successful the old Soviet Union was that had a similar system for controlling out comes?

Modeling Piketty's Tax Proposal
Source: Michael Schuyler, "What Would Piketty's 80 Percent Tax Rate Do to the U.S. Economy?" Tax Foundation, July 28, 2014.

July 31, 2014

French economist Thomas Piketty received national attention when he called for a global wealth tax in his best-selling book, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." Piketty also suggests that the United States impose a top personal income tax rate of 80 percent on incomes above $5 million and a tax rate of 50 to 60 percent on incomes above $200,000.

Michael Schuyler of the Tax Foundation decided to run the numbers on Piketty's tax proposal. According to Schuyler's analysis:

• Taxing income at top rates of 80 percent and 55 percent would cause a drop in GDP of 3.5 percent, a 1.6 percent decrease in wages and a 7.4 percent fall in capital stock.
• There would also be 2.1 million fewer jobs in the U.S. economy.

The Piketty proposal is not clear on whether the tax rates apply to capital gains and dividends. If they do:

• GDP would fall 18.1 percent (equivalent to $3 trillion), GDP would be 42.3 percent smaller than it otherwise would be, and wages would be 14.6 percent lower.
• The United States would lose 4.9 million jobs, and the government would lose $250 billion in revenue.
• The poor and middle class would see a 17 percent drop in their after-tax incomes.

Schuyler explains that wages fall due to these taxes because they reduce capital, and workers need capital (such as equipment) to be more productive and, thus, receive higher wages. Moreover, when businesses grow slowly and innovate less, fewer jobs are available in the economy.

Why does Piketty think that the tax rates will work? Schuyler explains that Piketty believes that the wealthiest Americans are insensitive to marginal tax rates, believing that they will continue to work and invest at the same rate, despite new and exorbitant taxes on their income. This view, writes Schuyler, "strains credulity."

In a related paper, NCPA Senior Fellow Richard McKenzie and Kathryn Shelton, research associate at the O'Neil Center for Global Markets and Freedom, authored a study debunking many of Piketty's claims regarding income inequality.
Source: Michael Schuyler, "What Would Piketty's 80 Percent Tax Rate Do to the U.S. Economy?" Tax Foundation, July 28, 2014. 

Social Security At 62 : Take the Money & Run

When to take your social security benefits comes down to ones out look on life - if you have the opportunity to take it now, do it as might not be there 8 years later or it might not be worth as much at a later date.

More important, if you can retire at age 62 and are in good health, take the money and run. Life is too important and short to base it entirely on money. Change what ever you have to to live a life of freedom. So you have to eat light, no new cars or bright shiny objects in your front room, what does it matter if you can walk outside, smell the air on a bright spring morning and know the best days are still to come.

Live like this is all there is.
Walk to the edge.
Make friends.
Run, don't walk.
Live with intention.
Choose with no regret.

Do it now.

Senior Fellow Larry Kotlikoff Testifies on Social Security's Insolvency, Complexity
Source: Laurence Kotlikoff, Hearing on "What Workers Need to Know About Social Security as They Plan for Their Retirement," testimony before the Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, July 29, 2014.

July 31, 2014

In testimony before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, Larry Kotlikoff, NCPA Senior Fellow and Director of the Tax Analysis Center, explained why the Social Security program is insolvent and in need of reform.

In order to pay full Social Security benefits on time, as promised, Kotlikoff explains that the payroll tax would need to rise by 32 percent immediately. If raising the payroll tax is not an option, Social Security would have to cut all benefit payments by 22 percent in order to keep the program afloat.

But putting aside these financial realities, Kotlikoff identifies another set of problems with the program: complexity. Even the formulas used to calculate benefits are confusing! For example, Kotlikoff writes out the perplexing formula used to calculate the benefits owed to a married spouse at a specific age: PIA(a)x(1-e(n))x(1 + d(n))xZ(a)+max((.5xPIA*(a)-PIA(a)x(1+d(n)))xE(a),0)x(1‐u(a,q,n,m))xD(a).

Determining when to collect benefits is important, but few people realize when they should do so. For example:

• A 62-year-old couple that has contributed the maximum amount to the Social Security program would be eligible for benefits at age 62. If they take their benefits then, their lifetime benefits will be $1.2 million.
• However, if they wait until age 70 to collect their benefits, lifetime benefits will total $1.6 million.

While the majority of households will see smaller benefits than this hypothetical couple, Kotlikoff explains that the benefit difference is still significant. There are a number of additional factors that retirees should consider when deciding when to collect benefits, he says, yet too few people are aware of them: spousal benefits, widower benefits, divorcee benefits, deeming, Delayed Retirement Credits, file and suspend options, start-stop-start strategies, and more.
A video of the hearing is available online.
 

Marriage Vows In Heaven : Divorce In Heaven? (Good Humor)

This so on the mark!

 

Betty and Tim die in a car accident on the eve of their wedding. In
Heaven, they ask St. Peter if they can still be married.
"Well, let me find out if this is possible. Stay here and I will be  right
back."
 

Six months pass and St. Peter returns. "Yes, we can do this for you."
The couple asks, "Well, as we have spent so much time together waiting  for
your answer, we need to know that if things don't work out, is there a
possibility that we can be divorced?"
 

To which St. Peter answers, "It took me six months to find a priest up
here -- how long do you think it will take me to find a lawyer?"

Presidential Life An Open Book? : Mr Obama? Questions Arise

This isn't the first time these questions like these below have been raised on just who Mr Obama is and where did he come from. Not so much that his birth is in question, which it is, but what did he actually do during high school and college years?

 

Why is everything about Mr Obama's academic and personal life shrouded in mystery? The only record of his life that we have is what he has told us in his two books, which are supposedly written by someone other then himself.

 

One of the questions that I find interesting to learn will  be what documents from eight years in office that will appear in his library, if he has one? I wonder if many of his presidential papers that will be presented for public scrutiny are being written now and have been for the past 6 years to reflect a positive and successful career in office.

 

I'm sure Mr Obama will want history to see him in the best possible light, and given that those that write the history books, mostly academics in colleges and universities, bastions of progressive liberalism, have shown to be more political biased then historical accurate, it isn't a stretch to understand Mr Obama's life and accomplishment will be stellar.

 

As we can all attest, the history books that are now in our schools appear to be anything but an accurate or truthful accounting of our country's past. Mr Obama's entire past life and political career up to this point is based on a false narrative. Everything that he has every done in the past, and all of the things he has done as president of our country, is either covered by the smoke of misinformation or deflected by only mirror images presented by a fawning academia and the main stream media.  

 

Why would anyone believe, when the history of Mr Obama is written, will that history be any different then what has transpired over the last six years while he has occupied the White House?

 

(Author Unknown)

It will be interesting to see what they put in his "Presidential Library" or "Presidential Mosque" about his early years when he is out of office.

 

In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures' lives, doesn't seem odd that there's so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama. For example, we know that Andrew

 

Jackson 's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano.

 

 As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.

 

 We are all aware of the lack of uncontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful. There are however, several additional oddities in Obama's history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

 

 It's interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK's magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess Joe Biden's aneurisms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know

 about their heart problems.. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton's exploits before and during his White House years, were well known. That's why it's so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy..." or "What a great dancer..."

 

 It's virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.

 

Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

 

When did he meet Michele,, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Doesn't this make you wonder?

 

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc?? Not one person has ever come forward from his past.

 It certainly is very, very strange...

 

This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named "The Manchurian Candidate"

 

 As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.

 

 George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia -- the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him..

 

He is such a great orator; why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Why won't he allow Columbia to release his records? Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University ....

Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there... but none remembered him.

 

 Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia , ever."

 

 Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of '83 Political Science, and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York , 'the macha' who knows

 everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."

 

Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia .

 

 Some other interesting questions..

 Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?

 Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?

 

It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias. The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.

 

 No wonder all his records are sealed... Somewhere, someone had to know him in school...before he "reorganized" Chicago & burst upon the Scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention.