NC Media Watch

No rich people, no taxes from rich people.

Russ Steele

Randy Hoven has an interesting set of charts at tables at the American Thinker. The chart showes the total  incomes of those making over $200K and over $1M per year from 2006 through 2009.
The total income on those making over $1M was cut almost in half from 2007 to 2009.  The tables show the decline in tax revenue.


For class warfare to be effective you have to have "rich people" to tax. As the number of "rich people" decline, they hide their money, or they do not work as hard, or regulations syphon away revenue, resulting in fewer and fewer targets to tax, thus revenues decline. 

If the trend above continues, Obama will soon run out of people making over 200K to tax, what a conundrum!

Oh My? Some insight to our jobless recovery

Russ Steele





The charts above show the differences in: a) monthly employment levels and b) monthly unemployment rates between 1992 and 2011 for: a) college graduates and b) workers with less than a high school degree.  The differences are quite striking and interesting, and might help explain some of the labor market dynamics in the current "jobless recovery." 

Note that the employment level for college graduates flattened during the 2008-2009 recession, but is now at a record high level.  In contrast, the employment level for workers without a high school degree
is about 2.5 million below the pre-recession peak.  Likewise the jobless rate for college graduates has increased by a few percentage points because of the recession (and is now at 4.4%), but the jobless rate for workers with less than a high school degree has increased by more than six percentage points (now at 14.3%), and was recently almost ten percentage points above its pre-recession level.

More Details at Mark Perry's blog. 

Nature fogets it is a science journal

Russ Steele

Nature, the widely respected science journal, has a feature story and an unsigned editorial in its latest issue addressing The Heartland Institute’s contribution to the global debate over climate change. The
articles can be read for free here and here.

You can read the full defence of the Heartland's 800 page report Climate Change Reconsidered by Joseph Bast the institutes President here.

In my mind Bast makes the most important observation at the end of his analysis of Natures crtitique.

Finally, the editors declare they are in pursuit of “a theory that can explain observations of
the world,” whereas the skeptics seem content to point out gaps in that theory. “The
Heartland Institute and its ilk,” they say, “are not trying to build a theory of anything.” Well,
where to begin?

I am not a scientist, and it certainly is not my place to tell the editors of such an esteemed
publication as Nature what they ought to be about. But it is my understanding of the
scientific method that it proceeds by the falsification of hypotheses, not their defense by
every means possible, which is what Nature and regrettably other leading science journals
have resorted to in the case of man-made climate change. The goal ought not to be to
defend a hypothesis, but to test it, and if it fails, to consider competing hypotheses and test
those just as rigorously.

Nature, it seems to this nonscientist observer, has lost its way. Until the journal opens its
eyes, it will not be a serious voice on climate science.

 

Climate Change Computer Models Illogically Fudged

Russ Steele

I have written amy times about the fudge factors in the climate models that are being use to justify public policies to reduce green house gases, and the development of expensive job killing alternative energy resources.

Now Astrophysicist Joe Postma, in a paper titled The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (July 22, 2011) shows how climate modellers treated Earth like a star ignoring night and day temperature differences. He exposes the fudged equations, the and faux science that props up the man-made global warming scare industry.

John O'Sullivan writes about the paper in a guest post at the Climate Realists, explaining how Postma exposed the illogically fudged computer models.

In clearly written language, Postma shows how a basic equation of radiative physics, and the modelling techniques used for stellar atmospheres, have been applied incorrectly to our earth, and how in actuality, the bottom of the atmosphere is supposed to be warmer than the radiative average of the entire ensemble.

To compensate for these inherent flaws, rather than correcting them, most climatologists have argued for the existence of a radiation-enhancing “greenhouse effect”, a postulate that Postma demonstrates to be devoid of logic and coherent meaning since it contradicts (and even reverses) the laws of physics.

Skeptics hope that Postma’s alternative thermal model will lead to the birth of a new climatology, one that actually follows the laws of physics and properly physical modeling techniques.

We learned from the Climategate e-mails that the climate models were being fudged and now we have a paper that examines the models in more scientific detail. However, our local scientific stalker will not accept the paper's conclusion because it was not peer reviewed and published in one of her approved journals.  A copy of the paper is here for your review and examination. Do your own peer review. Does Postma's logic hold up?

It is true, compact fluorescent light bulbs can poision your children

Russ Steele

I wrote about the danger of these environmental bombs in an Off the Top of My Head Column for the CABPRO Report here. Mercury vapor released from broken compact fluorescent light bulbs can exceed safe exposure levels, according to a study published in Environmental Engineering Science.  Mary Ann Liebert, Inc covers the report in Genetic Engineering News, the details are at Watts Up With That.

New Rochelle, NY, July, 6, 2011—Once broken, a compact fluorescent light bulb continuously releases mercury vapor into the air for weeks to months, and the total amount can exceed safe human exposure levels in a poorly ventilated room, according to study results reported in Environmental Engineering Science, a peer-reviewed online only journal published monthly by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (www.liebertpub.com).

The amount of liquid mercury (Hg) that leaches from a broken compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) is lower than the level allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), so CFLs are not considered hazardous waste. However, Yadong Li and Li Jin, Jackson State University (Jackson, MS) report that the total amount of Hg vapor released from a broken CFL over time can be higher than the amount considered safe for human exposure.

My emphasis added.  We have removed all the CFLs from our house, and are now hoarding regular bulbs, enough for our use until 2016, when we can be assured of a Republican victory in the House, Senate and White House and we can put an end to this lunacy of poisoning our children and grand children with government mandated CFLs to save the planet from global warming.

Exit Questions: Are you still using CFLs? Why?

Over E-mail Transom: Reality Check from Walter Williams

Russ Steele

This came in over the e-mail transom for a regular reader of this blog. Walter Williams makes some powerful arguments that no matter who the Republicans offer up as a presidential candidate Obama is a shoo in.  I would be interested in your counter arguments, if there are any?

By Dr. Walter Williams
 
Can President Obama be defeated in 2012?  No.  He can't.    I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.
 
The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
 
But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012.

The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter.  Obama gets reelected.  Nine percent unemployment?  No problem.  Obama will win.  Gas pricesmoving toward five dollars a gallon?  He still wins.  The economy soars or goes into the gutter.  Obama wins.  War in the Middle East?  He wins a second term.
 
America's role as the leading Superpower disappears?  Hurrah for Barak Obama!  The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending?  Obama wins handily.
 
You are crazy Williams.  Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining?  Sure I do.
 
And that's why I know Obama will win.  The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics.  And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
 
Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault.  After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
 
Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem.  Consider the following:
 
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly.  Period.  Doesn't matter what he does.  It's a race thing.  He's one of us,
 
2) College educated women will vote for Obama.  Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory.  It's really not more complex than that,
 
3) Liberals will vote for Obama.  He is their great hope,
 
4) Democrats will vote for Obama.  He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,
 
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama.  He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
 
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama.  He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
 
7) Big Business will support Obama.  They already have.  He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday.  Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
 
8) The media love him.  They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him.  After all, to not love him would be racist,
 
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him.  Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican.  American Indians will support him.  Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic.  And lastly,
 
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama.  And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned.  The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012. 
 
 --  Dr. Walter Williams

Exit Question:  Is Dr Williams analysis credible?

Union of Pretend Scientists supports CARB's AGW Ozone Scare

Russ Steele

Why does the press not challenge these pretend scientists? Oh, sorry dumb question!

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that CO2-induced temperature increases will worsen ground-level ozone concentrations (the kind coming from power plants and exhaust pipes, not the kind that shields the Earth from UV rays). Higher concentrations of ground-level ozone threaten the health of millions of Americans, an impact that could cost the US $5.4 billion in 2020.

The report finds that in 2020, "climate change-induced ozone increases" could result in nearly half a million additional cases of "serious respiratory illnesses" and add more than $729 million to the state's health care costs.

There was this from KQED Climate Watch in reference to the report:

Surfacestations paper has been accepted for publication

Russ Steele

Anthony writes the surfacestations.org paper has been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Ellen and I were some of the volunteers supporting this project, and are looking forward to publication.

After months of work, I’m pleased to announce that the paper that I have jointly written with several co-authors, including Dr. Roger Pielke Senior (who acted in the capacity as corresponding author) has run the peer review gauntlet and has been accepted.

Expect a full press release this week. I’m holding details until the University of Colorado press office has issued the official press release. As you all know, this project was done entirely by volunteers, with no budget, and there were no grants asked for nor provided.

That is something I am proud of, because it shows what citizen scientists can do that NOAA/NCDC couldn’t or wouldn’t, and taxpayers didn’t have to foot the bill. However, there is one last hurdle….

The hurdle . . . Anthony has to pay for the printing, and he wants to keep this a totally volunteer project and is asking for donations.  I am sending a check.  More details on making a donation here.

Update: (05-09-11, 08:00)  Anthony writes his goal is met, no more donations required. If you have already donated, thanks for your support.

Over the e-mail Transom: Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate is a fake

Russ Steele

I watched this compelling analysis on a link at Rebame's Ruminations. Now a regular reader has sent me a link and requested I post it for your analysis.

I do not question where Obama is borne, but he is hiding something. The evidence presented by this young computer graphic expert is rather compelling. Watch it for yourself, and then I would like to hear your thoughts. Is his analysis flawed?  Is there a better explanation for the changes detected in the Long Form document?  Also, follow all the four video clips and then answer this question:  Why was Obama's 1961 live birth certificate published on a pre-printed form only used after 1974?

Exit Question: Based on this analysis, do you think that Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate has been altered? Why?

Numbers, numbers numbers and sheeple do not get it

Russ Steele

President Obama and our daffy Senator Boxer want to punish big oil for our higher gas prices by taking away oil company subsides, which were create by the governement to encourge exploritory drilling in the first place.  Government gives $4 Billion in tax credits, government can take way $4 Billion in tax credits.  But, that is not the real issue.

Being good progressives Obama and Boxer are just trying the change the subject. They want to divert the sheeples attention from their failure to draft and pass an energy policy,  to focusing on the oil companies profits.  But, that is what oil companies are suppose to do, make profits for their investors.  When these nut jobs say "Big Oil" you train your brain to translate that in to "Big Oil Investors."  

There argument is that if the oil companies are profitable, they do not need $4 billion is subsidies.   So, they want to remove the $4 billion to punish the oil companies for being profitable.  But, does that really have the impact they think it will, other some PR for lame steam press.  Let's look a the numbers. Michael J. Economides writes in the Energy Tribune:

What are we really talking about? The “subsidies” amount to just $4 billion per year. It may sound a lot of money but here is a quick calculation. The United States is using about 400 million gallons of gasoline per day. At $4 per gallon this translates to $1.6 billion per day, which means that the yearly subsidies to the dreaded oil companies account for less than three days of just the US gasoline bill. The US total oil bill at today’s prices is about $2.3 billion per day. Using a modest multiplier in economic activity, that would make the US oil industry, not counting natural gas, a $10 billion per day economic activity. The “subsidies” trumpeted by the government headlines amount to a few hours of the industry’s size.

Hell yes, let take away those miscule subsides and then the sheeple will want to know were is the real energy policy? After the nut jobs have punished the evil oil companies, what's next?  The problem is there is no next. We have no visible oil policy, only the hidden agenda to drive up enegy cost, so all that wacko alternative energy crap starts of look feasible, and worthy of more subsidies. 

People, do not be sheeple, recognize your are being played by the enviromental wackos that want us to stop using oil by driving up the price. To do that they have shut down drilling, which they have off shore. The on shore drilling is the next target, with a ban on fracking. Trust me, it is coming, I have seen the talking points.

During the Bush administration the price of oil spiked. The week after Bush removed the moritorium on off shore drilling the price dropped like a rock thrown into a pond.  We just need to shut down the EPA, so we can start drilling in the US again, and the price of oil will drop like a rock once more.