Page 2 of 22
Posted on February 25 at 2:17 p.m.
Here’s the problem. First scientist predicted unprecedented heat and drought, and when that didn’t pan out, it became nebulous, unpredictable, climate change. Any extreme weather event is always a result of “climate change.” Meanwhile, the same scientists who publicly predict weather Armageddon, are privately scratching their heads trying to understand why their predictions didn’t pan out. Kevin Trenberth is my favorite example. In 2007, he publishes an article in Scientific American called “Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes” which predicts a longer more severe hurricane season, and hurricanes that are as large as the North American continent.
Meanwhile in his private correspondence regarding unusually cold weather he says this,” The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Scientist didn’t predict “colder winters” or ”increased rainfall;” they predicted scorching heat and draught. If the predictions don’t pan out, then the theories are just plain wrong.
People’s lives have been destroyed because governments of the world are setting long term policy based on these scientists “mis-forcasted” effects of global warming. Take the Brisbane floods last month for example.
Government officials prepared a policy called ClimateSmart 2050; outlining their priorities to cut greenhouse emissions 60% by year 2050. The working assumption of that document is increased aridity due to global warming, “the world is experiencing accelerating climate change as a result of human activities”, which is giving rise to “worse droughts, hotter temperatures and rising sea levels”. We are witnessing “a tendency for less rainfall with more droughts.”
As a consequence of this belief, Queensland officials instituted aggressive water conservation policies. This includes increasing water reserves at dams from 16.7% full to 80% full in order to prepare for the anticipated droughts. Even at 80% capacity, residents were warned to continue conserving water or face restrictions on water usage like bans on car washing. Then the downpours came and with them water levels reached as much as 150% to 180% capacity, and officials had to release that excess water into the river systems just as flash flooding was occurring, making an already bad situation much worse.
On Blaming Public Unions
Posted on February 25 at 8:52 a.m.
Is that so, Rambler? The strength of any scientific theory is it's ability to predict outcomes.
So let's look at the predictions some of those 9 scientists made, and how well they held up:
Prediction -March 2000 ..within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event...Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said. - Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,
Ten years later - January 7th, 2010 Snow-blanketed Britain seen from spacehttp://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/01...
"THE extent of Britain’s winter whiteout is revealed in a stunning picture from space, received today by scientists in Dundee. The nationwide blanket of snow and ice came as temperatures dipped to as low as minus 18."
Dr David Viner's prediction doesn't seem to be panning out. Maybe he needs to tweak the models.
Oh, and we have recently passed a very auspicious occasion, we are now more than halfway through Al Gore's prediction that we had ten years or less before we faced a scorching doomsday scenario. The data doesn't seem to back up Mr. Gore's predictions either.
Disturberville seems to be unaffected by the man made warming crisis so far. Sadly, the people of Wisconsin have to liquidate their power and cooling facilities in order to satisfy the demands placed on their operation by people just you rambler.
Posted on February 24 at 5:04 p.m.
Distuberville is a nice place to live; taxs are low and revenue is up!
Posted on February 24 at 2:55 p.m.
Binky, I didn't say Bush created the most jobs, I said he had the longest uninterupted job creation period, and the highest Federal revenue. Clearly his stat's would be better if not for the recessions, the 9/11 attacks, the housing bubble, etc.
But don't take my word for it, just read what President Obama's former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag wrote as Director of the Congressional Budgett office in May 2007:
"Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006...Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion.
The bulk of the revenue increase was associatedwith corporate income taxes: Revenues from corporate income taxes rose from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 (their lowest level since 1983) to 2.7 percent in 2006 (their highest level since 1978)."
Q: When were the Bush era tax cuts put into place? A: 2001 and 2003.
Q: How much did Federal revenues grow from 2003 to 2006? A: 35%, almost double the amount the economy grew during the same period. Proof the Bush tax cuts work!
Posted on February 24 at 1:27 p.m.
There you go again, pk...
What was the net effect of the Bush era tax cuts on job creation and Federal revenue?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy added more jobs than it lost during 50 out of 52 months between September 2003 and December 2007, the longest job creation period in our history. That's almost 52 months of uninterupted job creation. The total number of jobs created under Bush 43 during his 96 month term was 1.08 million.
Oh, and that's not all! Under President Bush, federal revenue in 2007 was $2.57 trillion; the highest figure recorded since records began in 1934.
Posted on February 24 at 9:48 a.m.
No, no, no pk!
This isn't hard to understand. Its kinda like if you spend more in a week than you actually earned at your job. You do this week after week until it reaches a crisis point. Do you blame your deficit on your employer for not paying you enough, or do you accept the blame for not living within your means?
The relationship between revenue and taxes is not necessarily one to one. Beyond a certain threshold, high taxation drives wealthier earners to tax friendlier states.
Just like when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry bought and docked his multi-million dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid paying Massachusett's sales tax (one time savings $437,500) and an annual yacht excise tax ($70,000 every tax season). Nothing unethical about that, but it is a good illustration of how excessive taxation fails to produce the intended real world results.
The same thing happened when Lebron James choose to play for Miami rather than New York, Chicago, or Cleveland. He took a $30 million dollar pay cut, but keeps more of the money he earns because Florida has no state income or estate tax. Florida is also a "homestead" state, so his house can never be seized.
The same thing happens to employers, they relocate to states that allow them to be more competitive. When they leave a city and/or state they take their jobs and potential for tax revenue with them. The ultimate effect of this kind of burdensome taxation policy is create a state barren of private sector jobs while leaving behind an ever increasing dependant class that relies on handouts from the state. That is the debt spiral that you see going on in Geece, France, California, etc. This does produce a political benefit , however, to the democratic party by consolidating power through public handouts while villainizing Republicans and the Tea Party.
It's real simple to understand. A tax cut is like a pay increase to the private citizen. More capitol in the hands of the individual leads to more spending, which leads to more investment, and ultimately job creation.
A strong business environment benefits society by producing greater economic output than is otherwise possible through repressive taxation, which in turns generates exponentially greater tax revenues than is possible by simply raising taxes. That is why it is important that government doesn't outspend a societies ability to generate revenues.
That is why it's important for Wisconsin to put controls on the bargaining powers of it's unionized employees. So that the state can provide the same level of services in an economically feasable manor without driving it's job creators to neighoring low tax states.
Posted on February 24 at 12:03 a.m.
Not so fast pk:
The connection between the public sector union employees and the proposed sale of the state's power plants is an obvious one, because Wisconsin can no longer afford to maintain either.
The power plants release CO2 and are threatened by EPA regulations. These regulations are due to the fraudulent, and now discredited, man made global warming theory. These are the real life consequence of the position you espoused so strongly back in the old ClimateGate days. Remember way back then?
Also these power plants only service state institutions, not private homes. Also they are already almost $90 million in debt. The new EPA regulations will make it cost-prohibitive for anyone to operate them. Remember what candidate Obama said about his cap and trade legislation, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,"
So it kinda makes good market sense to dump them now before the proposed EPA regulations go into effect and kill any chance of a sale. This would also pass the operational expense (271 State employees with benefits and pensions, not to mention insurance, grounds keeping, etc) and upgrade cost (to add pollution controls or transition to run on cleaner-burning natural gas) to the buyer or lessee, rather than the State. From the perspective of the state, the success of any sale or lease is a net gain based on the proceeds of the lease or sale, and a reduction in the cost of electric service, while limiting their exposure to cost over runs.
The same can be said about unionized state employees. From the perspective of the state, the same service can be purchased for less.
If I could clear up one final misconception; the Tea Party doesn't believe that tax breaks for the wealthy adds to the deficit, only Marxists believe that. The Tea Party believes tax cuts lead to prosperity, and over spending leads to deficits. That's why President Obama renewed the Bush tax cuts this year instead of letting them expire. More capitol in the private sector means more spending, which leads to more investing, and finally job creation.
Posted on February 23 at 4:56 p.m.
If it's in the interest of the people of Wisconsin to have open bidding on the sale of government property, doesn't it also follow that it's in the interest of the people to contain the cost of labor to the state as well?
Posted on February 23 at 4:19 p.m.
those are old power plants are dirty polluters! I thought that you were in favor of green energy and clean air.
"...Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency began an investigation to determine whether plants across the state at UW campuses and prisons were operating in violation of the Clean Air Act. In addition, new air pollution standards being implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expected to result in the need to for older coal-fired power plants in the state and around the country to add pollution controls or transition to run on cleaner-burning natural gas."
Isn't it in the interest of the people of Wisconsin to recoup their losses and sell these old dinosaurs to anybody willing to accept the burder of making the necessary upgrades to bring these plants up to compliance? It also would save money by transfering the burden of paying the workers and their benefits to a private entity.
Its a rare win/win situation.
Posted on February 23 at 12:01 p.m.
I accept your offer EZK!
Thank you for your generous offer; you're a union shop right?because Union contracts will usually define what the base rate of pay is, not the employer. Also, how much are you paying for my healthcare and retirement? Because as you know, us union guys don't contribute to our own, our employer does.
Also, can you point me to the grievance form, because I don't think you're paying me to scale. When is a good time for you to meet with my Union rep to discuss these inherently unfair and unsafe work conditions?
Naturally, I won't be coming to work this week to show my solidarity with my union brothers in Wisconsin.
Also, when would be a good time for you to meet with my representatives to work together to determine the best future for your sanitation requirements?
Nevermind, I'll just have the outside arbitrator called in, whose word is binding on both parties.
See you on the picket line!