Iowa Lake Lot

Unless something unusual happens, we will be closing in a couple weeks on a lake lot, just to the north of Emmetsburg Iowa on Five Islands Lake.

Here is the little mini-plat with a pointer to #10

Here is capture from Google Earth of that area prior to the little road that is in there now and the lots being mapped out. The little green marker shows the lot location and you can map the little mini plat to the picture pretty well by using the point just to the north of the lot that looks a little like a horses head.

As most of you know, Marla grew up in West Bend, little over 20 miles from the lake. A lot of her family including her Mom is still in that area, and we tend to spend a good deal of time with them.

We have no moving plans. Dad is still doing well up in Barron, Keenan is in Minneapolis, Marla is still at IBM, we have church, friends, gun club and other things here, so the general idea would be to put up a good sized shed down there in a couple years that would have water/power and an insulated portion. Beyond that, the "general idea" would be to maintain both places for a good long while.

Lots of exciting future thoughts of family get togethers, putting around the lake in a pontoon and doing some fishing. I could see some future blog posts from an ice fishing shack.

4th or 7th Most Settled?

Was 2013 4th or 7th Hottest Year? It Depends Who You Ask - weather.com:



When something is as settled as climate change,  it is hard to pin the number down to 4th or 7th. Just imagine the vast amount of "science" that went into picking the "base climate" from the chart below as "Departure from the 1951-1980 average". Why, between 1880 and 2013, we have fluctuated as much as between .6 and .8 to the high, and .4 and .6 to the low! Why, in 130 years our temperature has fluctuated nearly 1.4 degrees, and a full .2 degrees more to the high side than the low side!



Think of the brilliance of choosing the  "Mid 20th century baseline" of 1951 - 1980! How scientific! In fact, isn't it  TOTALLY INCREDIBLE that in the 4-5 BILLION years of earth history, the period from 1951-1980 is especially representative? During a "very significant percentage" of earths history, I'm thinking even the most "settled" of today's "climate scientists" would classify the human impact as "small"?



Pause for a moment as you look at the big colored global temps map and consider the "accuracy" of that global temperature calculation in 1880.  Satellite coverage must have been somewhat less than today, and I'm guessing that the many reporting stations at the poles, deepest Siberia and central Africa took slightly longer to get their data in! (polar bear / penguin couriers? listen to those drums ... temperature data!)   I just finished the "Heart of Darkness" which was set around 1900, and amazingly Kurtz didn't seem to be that excited about reporting the climate data from the Belgian Congo. (I'm sure it was colder then, but it sounded hot)



The sea ice chart goes ALL THE WAY BACK to 1979! Wow, that REALLY gives a nice sample out of 4-5 B years! It is growing on one pole and shrinking on the other. How can anyone POSSIBLY question the veracity of folks that use 130 years and a bit more than 30 years to provide "irrefutable scientific proof" that man is changing the climate of the planet? Why, in order to be a "Denier", one would have to be paid off by the oil industry! There is NO OTHER ANSWER!



*** I pause here to admit that I am a fully paid apologist for "Oil Industry Incorporated" ... the NSA knows it anyway, so I may as well fess up! The amount of money they have given me so far is, well, "significant" ... er at least as significant as 130 / 4,500,000,000 (.0000000289 significance) ***



Whew! I finally got that off my chest! Oh the shame!



The main reason I Blogged this is the predictions at the end:

"In the second half of 2014, we're looking at the likelihood of an El Niño starting, which will help warm 2014 over 2013," added Schmidt. "Depending on the size of the El Niño, it is likely to push perhaps either 2014 or 2015 quite a way up the rankings."

Note that in TRUE scientific fashion, if 2014 and 2015 ARE (by their own rather dubious calculations) "well up the rankings", then they will trumpet the OBVIOUS correctness of their "science". If '14 and '15 are "nothing special", or (gasp) cooler, then we will hear nothing about their prediction, and a "Denier" bringing it up is a non story. 



and so it goes. 



'via Blog this'

BO Admits He Wants Israel Nuked

Charles Krauthammer Admits What Senators Pushing Iran Sanctions Won't: They Want War:



Here is where Krauthammer "admitted" what the Senators are after:

"They're in a very difficult position," Krauthammer said of the Israelis during an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt. "This deal is designed as much by John Kerry and Barack Obama to prevent Israel from defending itself by attacking these facilities as it was supposedly to prevent Iran from going nuclear."

Got that? So if Israel is prevented from defending herself and Iran gets the bomb and carries out it's stated intent, then the outcome is that Israel gets nuked. Why is that not as certain a conclusion as the headline?



Note, this is supposed to be a NEWS story! But I guess since we can predict the climate 100 years in the future now as "settled science", the political outcome of sanctions a few years in the future is a chip shot! 



Why is it again that our conversations get "uncivil" and "inflammatory"?? 





'via Blog this'

Cosmetic Energy

Katy Perry Talks Believing In "Cosmetic Energy" | PopStopTV.com:



I read the other day where she had a major impact in getting taking WI for BO in the last election. "Cosmetic Energy" seems as good an explanation as any other for the power of BO.



'via Blog this'

Nature and Neurosurgery

CARSON: A physician's view on the sanctity of life - Washington Times:

Dr Ben Carson is another of those cases (like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeeza Rice, etc) of a brilliant self-reliant black person that you are never going to hear utter "some people just hate me because I'm black") like the illustrious BO did just the other day. No, the entire media and the Democratic party hate them for  the fact that they are willing to THINK and act on their own convictions, something that "progressives" cannot allow to stand, especially for the black. No, they must be kept on the thought plantation or destroyed by one means or another.

We have known for thousands of years that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and exceedingly wicked" (Jer 17:9), and we have even known for over 2 thousand years that there is hope in Christ Jesus. In fact, Western civilization was built and matured in the Christian Faith.

But as things got better, the West became certain that it was really their own brilliance and goodness that had made the improvements. They were born on third, certain they hit a triple. So a civilization that had been prospering "under God" decided that "God was dead" in the 20th century and 100's of millions died as the godless Nazis and Communists expressed in action the true desires of the human heart.

Even after all of that, when Reagan and Thatcher were elected, and the West turned just slightly toward God and prospered once again for a short season. The majority were not swayed, and we quickly fell back into decay, worse in America then before because we failed to realize that liberty and justice are ALWAYS under attack!

Even 9-11, an obvious point where a false religion founded by a pedophile that subjugates women on earth and preaches that the same is going to happen in the afterlife (nobody seems to care what the 72 virgins for the martyrs think of the deal) was often embraced by the left, while the attack on Christianity intensified.

The scourge of abortion is a great example of how "progressivism" takes the natural desire to nurture and care for children and transfers it to killing hundreds of thousands of the children while falling faint at the prospect of even tiny fish being damaged by projects that could benefit man. The very folks that believe ENTIRELY in "natural selection" refuse to propagate the population bearing the memes that proved the most adaptive in history, thus ceding the future to those willing to raise up future generations.

and so we die.



'via Blog this'

Shopping the Inorganic Aisle

Why Don’t We Merge These Disasters and Call It “ClimateCare”? | Power Line:
I sometimes ask to be shown to the Inorganic Foods aisle. Doesn't get one much beyond funny looks.

As the linked article points out, neither  "Affordable Care" or "Climate Change" are doing very well this winter. Germany had some cool, calm and foggy weather and discovered that neither solar or wind produce power under those conditions. (Who knew??) They were forced to rely on coal and nuclear to keep most things working. Realizing that their nuclear power capabilities were limited and going away, they were forced to start the process of building MORE coal plants.

Green is "nice", but "white frozen solid" is not nice, and when after supposedly 20 years of predicted warming produces a winter just like 20 years ago, people tend to prefer having the lights and heat operating.

On the "Affordable Care" front, we  are finding out that when a huge number of new requirements are put on insurance and the prices offered to some segments of the market need to be subsidized by others, the price goes up, meaning that a whole new set of people have trouble affording care ... or find out that "affordable" means a deductible that is not affordable. Again, who knew? Certainly not BO (he WASN'T lying about "if you like it you can keep it")  ... perhaps someday he will also figure out that cool, foggy calm weather isn't conducive to solar or wind power.

"Progressivism" requires that "Common Sense" be repealed -- which means that reality must be repealed. Science becomes religion, lies become truth, private becomes public,  ... Orwell covered it all extremely well. By law, by intimidation, by any means possible, one must be convinced to believe "the experts" in the place of your lying eyes and experience.

This is as old as "The Emperor's New Clothes children's story. Are they allowed to repeat that any more? With BO and the progressives in power, it seems WAY too close to home.

'via Blog this'

SALON Explains Food Stamps to Paul Ryan

What I learned from a week on food stamps: Paul Ryan couldn’t be any more wrong - Salon.com:

The entire "SNAP / Food Stamp" discussion is a great example of differing world views and people talking past each other. The MSM is of course extremely clear on the Republican view; "heartless, cruel, war on the POOR, blaming the poor, etc, etc ...." It often reminds me of the evil Tim Pawlenty being accused by Mike Hatch, and effectively by MPR commentators of wanting to "release the worst psychopathic sex offenders to save money".

That particular quote showed up on MPR a number of times, and each time it was uttered, one wondered what the person uttering it had between their ears. Really? Had there been a policy meeting in the Pawlenty office that went something like:

(Staffie A) "Hey, we have to save some money, let's release some sex offenders!"

(Sr Staff) "Great thought, but it seems a little weak as a news item ..."

(Staffie B)"Oh, wait, how about THE WORST sex offenders?"

(Sr Staff) "SUPER, I think you are REALLY on to something here, but let's hone it some more ..."

Eventually, the Pawlenty team apparently arrives at the ultimate idea, "Let's release the WORST psychopathic sex offenders to save money!!!"

So how does such an astute group of folks like those at MPR just repeat that back verbatim as being official policy from the Pawlenty administration without at least SOME little bell going off in their heads?

We ARE our biases!!! Unless we work VERY hard to THINK!

The current Republicans, SNAP and the media view are quite similar. Obviously Democrats including BO have signed off on everything to do with SNAP cuts -- BO has the vaunted veto pen, and the Senate is in the hands of Harry Reid, both willing to shut the government down rather than NEGOTIATE on  delaying BOcare at all ... and we now KNOW what a WINNER BOcare is!

So they have been willing to negotiate on SNAP, which means that it must not be nearly as good as BOcare for starters (or at least not be projected to buy votes as well). Yet, we see column after column assuming (apparently correctly) that the American public believes something to the effect that Republicans have some sort of a Hitleran Concentration Camp fetish, or USSR Starving Gulag wish relative to "the poor".

For starters there is the small (and hard to find) matter of CUTTING THE RATE of GROWTH, vs CUTS! http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/15241-joint-bills-introduced-to-cut-skyrocketing-snap-food-stamp-costs only in the whacked out place called Washington, can a program like food stamps DOUBLE in size, and be projected to GROW at 20% a year for TEN YEARS, and someone that comes in an talks about "cutting" (reducing the rate of growth) on a program that would cost $760B, so it "only" might cost $730B!).

But after YEARS of trying to explain to lefties the difference between "cutting the rate of growth" and a CUT,  I DO understand that when the choice is between "human beings" and "numbers", lefties simply care not for numbers ... so I'll focus on the "human interest".  If I expect a 10% raise next year and only got a 5% raise, my salary was CUT! It is just too hard for the left to see it any other way!

Here are some revelations that crept up on the intrepid Salon reporter as he tried to live on SNAP:

1. Some people look down on taking them as "welfare". Ah yes, for some of the young, life's little embarrassments are rather harsh. Wait until after age 50 when you can go through hours on the porcelain throne preparing to have many FEET of tube inserted in through the out door in the interest of not dying of cancer. Yes, even death is less than optimum, but so far, not even the supposedly godlike BO has proposed a law against it -- no doubt one which would also be blocked by evil Republicans!
   
2. Food Stamps don't cover lattes or even take out. Oh, the horror!
   
   "At first, $41 seemed like a lot of money for a week’s worth of food, but this was $41, full stop — not $41 (unless I’m running late for work and need to stop by a coffee shop for a muffin) and not $41 (and then ordering from Seamless because the temperature has dropped and I wanted to cozy up with some hot soup). This was $41 to pay for three meals a day for seven days. This was going to require some planning."
   
3. Oh, the "planning", and the work of prep! Having to reduce meat and cut out "organic" ...
   
   "Trying to stretch my meager food budget, I found that while some healthy items were expensive — anything organic or gluten free jumped in price, and meat prices are very high — fruits, veggies and oatmeal were far less expensive than frozen meals or cereal. The most difficult part was preparing and portioning out my meals."
   
4.  "Time was an unexpected source of frustration. I was late to class because I mistimed how long it would take to cook and clean up after a stir-fried lunch. When running behind schedule on a Thursday night, I resorted to a meal of cold, leftover brown rice and carrot sticks. Hardly nutritional, or filling."
   
    Dear me ... it takes time to cook! Perhaps the only human activity for which this is the case. No doubt it takes no time to GROW the food too -- if one was forced to think "holistically" !

We were once a nation founded by hardy souls that got on SMALL boats and migrated to a new land, taking MONTHS to arrive, with NO HOPE of assistance should they run into difficulty. Many of them were even aware they could not just "pick up a muffin", or "order Seamless" in the new land.

Even just 100 years ago, there were plenty of people in rural areas that had no power, no running water, no even "relatively instant" communications, and not only no "food stamps", but they also had to put up with the minor inconvenience of GROWING and preserving their food rather than just finding the time to cook it and clean up after! 

We are no longer that nation, and clearly a whole bunch of us believe that our sustenance ought to be delivered like mothers milk, with no effort at all on our part -- although no doubt even in mothers milk, this generation would demand more flavors and the assurance of "100% organic"! 

The very idea that someone might have to shop, prepare, plan, cook and manage storage and such ON THEIR OWN! Is beyond the ken of people like this author. 

So how DO we communicate with each other? Are the Chinese going to be willing to cover the tab so many of us don't have to bother to shop, cook, clean, plan, etc? One wonders how this poor reporter imagines that the foodstuffs show up at his local market or "Seamless"? He must view the sorts of people that deal with the much greater difficulties of working the ground, planting, tending, reaping, processing, etc as some sort of an alien race. (no doubt a race of aliens he is far superior to) 

Can we possibly be a self-governing people when some write columns like this and think they are conveying useful information, and some farm thousands of acres raising the food so that someone that has extreme difficulty in just cutting it up and preparing it can complain that it's too hard / complicated / time consuming / etc? How DO we talk to each other?

So the policies of BO have created the worst economic recovery since the Depression, and the ONLY idea of the Statists is to double down on more of the same policies, including INCREASING the minimum wage, which will reduce the number of available low paying jobs, and to INCREASE the ease of the safety net, rather than putting SOME limit on how fast it grows!! 

It is HEARTLESS to look at numbers, realize the difference between slowing rate of growth and "cuts", and it is HEARTLESS even if Democrats sign off on it! They bear no responsibility for that, because they ought not have to "negotiate" at all. There IS NO REALITY ... reality and Republicans should just shut up and die!

'via Blog this'

Krugman Defines Fairness

The Undeserving Rich - NYTimes.com:

Paul Krugman knows what fairness is and isn't. He personally bought a $1.7M NYC apartment in '09 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/paul-krugman-buys-new-yor_n_258399.html ... there MAY be a few people in the country that would find THAT to be "rich", but no doubt Paul would set them straight.

Paul actually isn't even bothered by the sundry athletes, actors and such making 10's and hundreds of millions per year ... no, he reserves his bile for the "top 1%".

He doesn't even say what do with them. I'm not much of a mathematician, but I'd hazard a guess that the top (and the bottom) 1% will always be with us ...and for those of us in the "middle 90%, the lives of either class are so far removed from ours that we may as well think about life on the Star Ship Enterprise ... or the South Pole, or some other exotic or imaginary situation.

I can only assume his purpose is to make folks MAD at those "really really rich people" ... and maybe hint that "class warfare" would be a good idea ... although as some odd economist he seems to think that the top 1% getting some money in "taking" it from somewhere else. More likely, like the rest of us, they are taking a lot of it from future generations, what our current generation has excelled at like no other. Doing all that we can do to insure that the succeeding generation will be worse off then we are!

Of course that isn't new after all ... we kicked off the staling from the kids mantra way back in FDR days, we are just getting a lot more advanced at it today ... to the tune of $60T+.

Why DOES one write a column like that? BO has been in office 5 years now ... with Krugman largely applauding his policies, and "Income Inequality" by both Paul's and BO's own numbers is worse than ever.

Slick Willie entered the WH penniless and the Clintons are worth $300M today, more than the Romney's ... although somehow if Hillary runs, I doubt if "wealth" is gong to come up much. The Kerry's were worth $800M in the '04 election and wealth wasn't much of a concern then. Al Gore made himself into being worth a BILLION, by selling "carbon offsets" and then selling his cable channel to oil rich Arabs (Al Jazeera)  ... no media types seem very concerned about that.

People that have worked hard and invested might think that folks like Paul, Slick, BO and Al are actually more interested in scamming us with taxes, BOcare, high energy prices and a few other sundry schemes than the "Wolves of Wall Street".  Of course, we are just stupid rubes, not able to understand the brilliance of folks like Paul!
'via Blog this

Why The Left Loves BO

Putin vs. Obama | Power Line:

The left loves America raped, beaten and bleeding to death along the highway. It is easy to see why they love BO so much.

'via Blog this'

Left Applauds Tea Party Decline

Dana Milbank: D.C. returns to business as usual - The Washington Post:

Ah, the cheering as the "Tea Party" fades, and Washington returns to "Business As Usual" where nobody bothers to read what they pass. The "gold old days" of having to "pass the bill to find out what is in it" are back with a vengeance.  By this time next year we will finally know more about what is in the Employer Mandate part of BOcare that was unilaterally delayed by His Worshipfulness BO.

Note that THIS IS GOOD! If the common folk paid too much attention to what was happening, then there might be a chance of them not being happy about this development.

I always like to see the accolades of the enemies of freedom buried in their attack bile:

This has similarities to what happened a few years after the Republican Revolution of 1994, when the revolutionaries began to act like the Democratic majorities they had deplored. Then, as now, the rebels left their mark; in this case, they succeeded in reducing non-entitlement spending at a rate not seen in decades. But comb through the $1.1 trillion “omnibus” spending bill, as the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has, and you’ll see a return to the old ways.

Get that??  The "rebels" DID "leave their mark"! (which Dana was castigating as throwing grandma off the cliff and strangling the poor stillborn economy back then, but never mind)  In the '90s that "mark" accounted for Slick Willy's vaunted "budget surplus" (were it an ACTUAL surplus, then the FICA account would contain some ACTUAL money rather than pure IOUs!).  This time around the HORROR of the "sequester" was going to "cripple the economy", now, as back in the '90s, it did the OPPOSITE and allowed some level of growth as well as REDUCING THE DEFICIT. Back in the '90s it was a reduction of the deficit in actual dollars, this time around it has suddenly become fashionable for Democrats to crow over deficit reduction as A PERCENTAGE OF GDP! 

As I've argued MANY times, the percentage path is REALLY the only way that counts. Comparing how many drinks I've had vs how many some 100lb woman has had is a useless statistic. Somebody that makes $250K a year buying a $50K car is MUCH different than someone that makes $25K a year buying a $50K car! 

But never mind. Democrats had been using ACTUAL deficit numbers to pound on W since his deficit as a % of GDP looked pretty good since the economy was GROWING! 

Move to BO, and we had a complete "cone of silence" fall over deficit numbers that shot up to an unprecedented $1.6T for a single years, with a numbers over $1T as far as one could see.  Suddenly the NYT and the rest of the media was IN LOVE with massive deficits. 

The numbers are still huge, but since the economy has showed some flickers of life, the "% or GDP" numbers HAD to start sounding better, so suddenly, we have headlines of "deficit improving!!!". 

We had an economy on life support with $1.6T deficits, so now we have an economy in a wheel chair with $1T deficits and it "looks better"!!!! 

At some point, we need an MSM that has SOME minor connection to reality rather than pure political bias colored glasses. 

'via Blog this

NRA Should Apologize to Joe Biden

Student Used Shotgun to Shoot 2 Students in Roswell, New Mexico, Cops Say - ABC News:

When the left does a "series of studies", or maybe "creates a model" (ala global warming) that "PROVES that Joe was right, shotguns are OK and "Assault Rifles" and "large magazines" are evil, and the NRA was 100% wrong and completely disingenuous that tragedies like Sandy Hook could be prevented by having armed people to quickly respond in the schools, then we will get headlines like above blared across every paper and media outlet in the country.

"The governor said a school staffer and an off-duty New Mexico State Police lieutenant who was dropping his child off at the school were instrumental in helping to end the active shooter situation before more people were injured."

As it is now, QUIT MAKING THIS HEADLINE NEWS!

Unfortunately way more kids than this die or are injured every day from car accidents, drug and alcohol, suicide, etc, etc.

We all know that shotguns have been around FOREVER, but a huge percentage of broken homes, drugging kids for any behavior issue, violent video games, shows and media, the idea that "nobody goes to hell, it is just over", instant celebrity for shooting your friends, etc, etc is somewhat new. Do we KNOW, "why now", NO ... but we DO know that shotguns are NOT new for goodness sake!!

It seems pretty obvious that our Sandy Hook gun vendetta against ARs and large magazines has not resulted in "safer schools". Is there any chance that we can admit that Joe Biden is an idiot, and the NRA was right and make sure that we have some screening of kids coming into schools that includes an armed officer?

Hello??? Do we want to do stupid politics, or do we want to save some kids?? I know BO and the gun grabbers are waiting with baited breath for some kid to use an AR or at least a high cap pistol so they can go off on another ban-mania, but isn't it just TOO obvious that will do NOTHING to solve the problem WHATSOEVER???? Do they have to make it THIS obvious that they care absolutely nothing for the lives of kids, they ONLY want to get control of those that avail themselves of the 2nd amendment!

'via Blog this'

Bush Pal Arrested on Solicitation

Visits With School Pals Are a Touchstone on President’s Trips to Hawaii - NYTimes.com:

In April 2011, Mr. Titcomb was arrested on a charge of soliciting prostitution in a Honolulu sting operation, but the reunions with the president never stopped. Mr. Obama’s concern, Mr. Axelrod said, was for Mr. Titcomb, whose arrest was international news because he “happened to be Barack Obama’s friend.”

I'm sure you all recall this story that was INTERNATIONAL NEWS from 2011! (a google looks like it made Huffpo and maybe abc ... I'll bet one had to look pretty hard!). 

When we have a Republican in office, all their friends are scrutinized and so much as a wrong word from one of them is cause for a few days of media chastisement. Can you imagine W meeting with his "Choom Gang" for a few days on vacation? You know, the guys that he mentioned that he did a "lot of booze and weed, a little blow when you could afford it, but no smack"? 

Ya know, it WOULD be nice if a REAL president could get even 20% of the privacy and leeway to be a normal guy for a few days that this Luo Tribesman gets! 

'via Blog this'

OMG There Was a TRAFFIC JAM!!

Christie, Clinton and Obama | RealClearPolitics:

Thomas Sowell does his usual brilliant and practical job of dissecting the Christie "Bridgegate" flap and contrasting it with the press treatment of Hillary and Obama.

He likes Christie far better than I do. He points out the obvious though, that someone with an "R" designation MUST be able to communicate, and they often are not. I find Christie to be a hopeless RINO, and I have a hard time imagining myself voting for him.

My view on "Bridgegate" is either:
A). He knew, he has now lied, and he ought to be gone.
B). He didn't know, which makes him clearly incompetent as a leader.

That is pretty much the same as my assessment on BO for Gun Runner, Benghazi, IRS, NSA, Shutdown "punish the public", etc. If one really listed them all, the blog gets too long.

I'm especially struck how when BO was obviously putting up unnecessary "Barrycades" and telling Park Employees to "make it as difficult has possible", the press was nowhere to be found.

Come on, we KNOW that the STANDARD of hardball Democrat patronage politics is "Punish your enemies, reward your friends". Just in case anyone has forgotten, here is admonishing Hispanic Voters to follow the maxim! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CJqD7F2pwA

So because that is how Democrats operate all the time, then it is OK, but when some RINO does it, then it is time to go on absolute full court press attack??

I guess so.


'via Blog this'

Next Years Weather to 99% Confidence

What Catastrophe? | The Weekly Standard:

Good article that covers a brilliant and courageous actual scientist that raises the ire of the axis of Government - Climate Alarmist Industry (like Gore) - Government funded Academia.

Harvard scientist with great credentials, not cowed by the abuse and venom of the Warmist cabal.

"Because CO2 is invisible and the climate is so complex (your local weatherman doesn’t know for sure whether it will rain tomorrow, let alone conditions in 2100), expertise is particularly important. Lindzen sees a danger here. “I think the example, the paradigm of this, was medical practice.” He says that in the past, “one went to a physician because something hurt or bothered you, and you tended to judge him or her according to whether you felt better. That may not always have been accurate, but at least it had some operational content. .  .  . [Now, you] go to an annual checkup, get a blood test. And the physician tells you if you’re better or not and it’s out of your hands.” Because climate change is invisible, only the experts can tell us whether the planet is sick or not. And because of the way funds are granted, they have an incentive to say that the Earth belongs in intensive care."

For all the sophistication of some of the math and equipment involved, science is common sense. You make a hypothesis and you TEST IT, many times over many years and it MUST prove true again and again. If it does not, then it is FALSE, and must be modified. Karl Popper established that anything that is "scientific" is FALSIFIABLE! If it is "settled", then it IS NOT science, because actually science gains it power because it is ALWAYS ready to be shown to be in error!

Statists and other despots HATE common sense because it OFTEN shows that "the emperor has no clothes". Since any human majesty is ALWAYS imagined only, those that wish to be king have a vested interest in forcing to masses to see them as infallible and to be afraid to speak out against them.

As the title and the quote points out, while it is often true that one can see in RETROSPECT something very large that has happened over 100's or thousands of years -- like climate, geologic phenomenon, etc, it is entirely different to PREDICT those kinds of events in the future. We know that climate changes, meteors impact, volcanoes erupt, and earthquakes occur, but to PREDICT such happenings is completely different.

When an "expert" tells you that they can predict something 100 years in the future, they had better be VERY good at predicting a related event tomorrow!

'via Blog this'

Is Weather More Extreme?

11 extreme weather records - CNN.com:

As part of the re-branding of "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", the Climate Nazis now regularly hammer us with "it's not the weather, it's the EXTREMES" as "proof of something bad happening so we ought to allow them to control our use of energy". Of course, exactly like anything else, they are not consistent on this ... as soon as they get some high temp numbers, they will talk "warming" again, but for now we are beaking cold records, so "extreme" and "change" are the pseudo science spin of the day.

A Quick summary of the 6 extreme records they point out in this article.

1. Coldest Temp - 1983
2. Hottest - 1913
3. Most Rain in one minute - 1956
4. Most Rain in 24 hours -1966
5. Biggest Hailstone - 1986
6. Longest Drought - 1913 to 1918

See a pattern? Like more records in the last 30 years, with even more records of recent? I sure don't. When data doesn't match your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. That would be science.

Since Climate "science" no longer follows that rule, it is not science at all. "Proven Science" is an oxymoron ... THEORY is as good as Science ever gets, meaning MANY cases of repetitive data that rigorously MATCHES a hypothesis. ONE case that does not match means that the theory needs to be improved. 

Climate and weather "change" are certain realities ... we observe them constantly. What is MISSING is a THEORY that gives us consistently accurate short term, and maybe eventually longer term REPEATEDLY CORRECT PREDICTIONS!! 

If I can accurately predict the weather next week to within a few tenths of a degree or inch of precipitation,CONSISTENTLY (like 99% accurate) you should start to be impressed. When I can predict it NEXT YEAR to similar accuracy, that will be a sign of real progress in understanding weather and climate. When I''m able to accurately predict the weather of the NEXT DECADE  (easily verified by waiting 10 years and then watching the weather for 10 years), within similar 10th - .5 of a degree accuracy, THEN (and ONLY THEN if it is science you want to do), should you start to believe that I may really be on to something, and can predict temperature to within a degree or so in a CENTURY!

'via Blog this'