Randy Forbes should not "run away" from running in the newly defined 4th Congressional District.
Although there is no requirement for a member of Congress to live in the District for which they seek office it's an unwritten rule and Randy Forbes should run not jump ship to run in the 2nd district. I suspect that Gary Byler is up to his old tricks and back room deals which has in the past and will again ultimately hurt the party.
Regardless of what Randy decides, there should be a GOP convention and those interested enough to participate will determine who is going to represent the 2nd District in November. Unlike a primary, a convention will not besmirch the ultimate victor. A convention will be quick. A convention will unite the 2nd District. A convention will preserve campaign dollars for the race in November.
Congressman Forbes is the only republican popular enough to carry the new 4th Congressional District and I encourage him run for the sake of the Republican Party.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Monday, December 14, 2015
CO2 CO2 CO2 - Argggggg
Breaking news - The world's governments agree to spend trillions to control the climate. Trillions... Not on potable water, not on hunger, not on disease...
What really gets me going is the recent prediction that the current Paris agreement would only halt warming at 2 degrees Celsius but that other groups are protesting this arguing warming must be halted at 1.5 degrees.
I'm just scratching my head remembering the blog I did a while back documenting my efforts to determine the world consensus on the amount of warming since 1900.
Spoiler alert there is no consensus.
If governments and the scientific community can't agree on what the average surface temperature increase has been since 1900 how can they accurately measure change?
Scientist are acting as if there is a model that exist that can predict how many tons of CO2 must be eliminated to halt warming at 2 degrees. This though invokes a level of SWAG beyond comprehension. (SWAG = Scientific Wild Ass Guess) Many articles published before, during and after the Paris United Nations Conference on Climate Change passionately support the 1.5 degree over the 2.0 degree limit which baffles me. Why not 1.0 degree?
Instead of agreeing on an arbitrary increases my hope is that the worlds governments will HELP developing economies such as China, India, Pakistan and all those in Africa who actively "pollute" the air, water and land to a level that is unfathomable.
Instead of spending trillions on CO2 mitigation why not spend trillions on helping the developing world stop polluting the air, water and land? Why can't the developed world help the developing world create a healthy environment? Compared to CO2 mitigation, cleaner air, water and land is the low hanging environmental fruit and I argue cleaning this up first is common sense.
If clean air, water and land are just too mundane you can always go after trace pharmaceuticals, mercury, soil loss, over fishing, deforestation, etc... The list I'm sad to say goes on and on.
PS Looking at NASA's imaging it's clear that developing countries are burning everything they can to heat and cook. The United States is clearly doing something right so lets us help the areas in RED become BLUE and clean up our ever so fragile atmosphere in a way that will directly impact our blue marble in space.
If clean air, water and land are just too mundane you can always go after trace pharmaceuticals, mercury, soil loss, over fishing, deforestation, etc... The list I'm sad to say goes on and on.
PS Looking at NASA's imaging it's clear that developing countries are burning everything they can to heat and cook. The United States is clearly doing something right so lets us help the areas in RED become BLUE and clean up our ever so fragile atmosphere in a way that will directly impact our blue marble in space.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Why Amtrak Sucks
The concept is pretty simple. Provide mass transportation that is as fast
as or faster than driving. If priced
around what gas and tolls cost people will ride.
If you can provide a comfortable setting, clean bathrooms,
good food and drink... It will become popular and I would venture actually make
money.
Right now Amtrak only manages to meet one of
those criteria in that the cars are comfortable. So why does Amtrak consistently lose money? For starters they can't even make money
selling concessions to a captive audience.
The railroad's inspector general audited by the GAO
concluded Amtrak loses about $80 million a year selling food. From 2002 to 2012
Amtrak's food service lost $834 million.
For example Amtrak charges about $2 for a soft drink while costing taxpayers about $3.40 and don't even think about a hamburger that costs taxpayers $16 and tastes like...
My suggestion is to have the federal government take full responsible for the tracks, crossings, bridges, etc... while fostering competition among more than one rail company. Who knows, one day Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific or BSNF might offer something akin to the Uber ride service. However, right now that’s just a pipe dream even as Amtrak’s losses decreased to only $227,000,000 in 2014.
Amount of Warming Not Settled
Various government and institutional studies indicate the Earth has warmed since 1900 by:
1.40 1.53 0.95 1.30 1.35 1.50 1.26 1.30
degrees Fahrenheit (my best calculation is 1.32 degrees) and sea levels have risen about 8.5 inches.
Isotopic study indicates man has increased global CO2 by 33% during this time period.
But is the CO2 increase causing this warming? Do umbrellas cause rain?
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: "Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial." "When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period."
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: "Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?"
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science."
* Update - Turns out I keep forgetting to mention my main point. Humans continue to actually pollute on levels that are frightening for the planet an this must be addressed. Everyday pollution goes hand in hand with developing countries so why not focus on helping free a billion plus people from unbelievable poverty?
* "Isotopic study indicates man has increased global CO2 by 33% during this time period." Turns out this is wrong. Most scientists are now indicating a warming planet/oceans actually contribute more to the CO2 increases than mankind. A good guess is that fossil fuel burning is directly responsible for less than 1/3 of the CO2 increase. Who knew?
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
With Every Single Day
With Every Single Day (Romulus Vulpescu)
With every single day we disregard
The birds, the love and the forgiving sea
Not realizing that we do, in fact,
Replace them with a desert of dismay.
Just fooled into the comfort of a dream
Which we dismiss with just one hesitation
We linger in our circle without seam
Denying our eyes the contemplation
We roll up in our sheets without joy,
A loneliness in two, cowardice fixes,
Whispering to each other words of lie
Which turn to dross our worn and common kisses.
Eventually we find ourselves too hollow
With an impermissibly low and sad ideal,
Too skeptical, too lonely, too desert
To see that love is here and still real.
With every single day we disregard
The birds, the love and the forgiving sea
Not realizing that we do, in fact,
Replace them with a desert of dismay.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
"MORE REVIEW FOR POWER LINE"
The EPA has forced the shutdown of two older coal fire power plants in Yorktown. To meet peak demand Dominion has asked to build transmission lines across the James to connect the nuclear plant at Surry with Newport News.
It would seem the Pilot wants more study because the power lines are seven plus mile from historical Jamestown and may spoil the view. I think it's safe to argue a vast majority of our countries historical infrastructure projects wouldn't be allowed under today’s regulations. Think filling in Boston harbor and dredging for Miami.
First of all, a coal power plant isn't "dirty" just because it's old or clean because it's new. U.S. coal burning power plants are the cleanest in the world regardless of age thanks to companies like 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing) and work done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Steam technology is one of the oldest and a retrofitted steam power plant with scrubbing technology is an amazing way to produce clean power.
Over 90% of our nations electricity comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro all of which are "bad" because CO2, fracking, radiation and negative environmental impact. Shutting down coal plants primarily because they produce CO2 doesn't make environmental/economic sense until a cleaner alternative is deployed.
Spoiler alert, California is thirsty because of the massive build up of cold ocean water offshore and their unwillingness to build new dams and reservoirs (or keep what they have) to offset the reality Southern California is a semi-arid desert, supporting one tenth of the U.S. population. Don't let Virginia suffer a similar fate, that being rolling blackouts, for our failure to do what is needed.
When Dominion Virginia Power informs us that two coal plants - running 30% of the time - if shut down will require a power line from Surry to cross the James river, we should not scoff at them. We should not complain that transmission lines would mar our historical skyline. We should not demand the cables be buried under the James. We should not editorialize Dominion's predictions of doom are just hype. We should stop whining and accept that 40% of our nations power comes from coal and develop an alternative BEFORE we demand these plants be taken off line.
It would seem the Pilot wants more study because the power lines are seven plus mile from historical Jamestown and may spoil the view. I think it's safe to argue a vast majority of our countries historical infrastructure projects wouldn't be allowed under today’s regulations. Think filling in Boston harbor and dredging for Miami.
First of all, a coal power plant isn't "dirty" just because it's old or clean because it's new. U.S. coal burning power plants are the cleanest in the world regardless of age thanks to companies like 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing) and work done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Steam technology is one of the oldest and a retrofitted steam power plant with scrubbing technology is an amazing way to produce clean power.
Over 90% of our nations electricity comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro all of which are "bad" because CO2, fracking, radiation and negative environmental impact. Shutting down coal plants primarily because they produce CO2 doesn't make environmental/economic sense until a cleaner alternative is deployed.
Spoiler alert, California is thirsty because of the massive build up of cold ocean water offshore and their unwillingness to build new dams and reservoirs (or keep what they have) to offset the reality Southern California is a semi-arid desert, supporting one tenth of the U.S. population. Don't let Virginia suffer a similar fate, that being rolling blackouts, for our failure to do what is needed.
When Dominion Virginia Power informs us that two coal plants - running 30% of the time - if shut down will require a power line from Surry to cross the James river, we should not scoff at them. We should not complain that transmission lines would mar our historical skyline. We should not demand the cables be buried under the James. We should not editorialize Dominion's predictions of doom are just hype. We should stop whining and accept that 40% of our nations power comes from coal and develop an alternative BEFORE we demand these plants be taken off line.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Only in America
Of course we look like idiots - we are!
#10 Only in America... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate campaign fund-raising event.
#9 Only in America... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population.
#8 Only in America... could two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee) BOTH turn out to be tax cheats.
#7 Only in America... can a terrorists, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shout out "Allahu Akbar", fire 214 rounds, kill 13 people and injure more than 30 all in the name of Allah, be labeled as "workplace violence".
#6 Only in America... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally become American citizens. (probably should be number one)
#5 Only in America... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the Constitution be called EXTREMISTS.
#4 Only in America... you need to present a driver's license to cash a check, buy alcohol or Claritin but not to vote. (I think it's perfectly fine to vote with your voter registration card or confirmation letter already in use but hey that's me.)
#3 Only in America... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a typical U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
#2 Only in America... could you collect more tax dollars from the people than at any time in history, then spend a trillion dollars more than collected and complain that the government doesn't have enough.
#1 Only in America... could the "rich" - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
#10 Only in America... could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 per plate campaign fund-raising event.
#9 Only in America... could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General and roughly 20% of the federal workforce is black while only 14% of the population.
#8 Only in America... could two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who once ran the Ways and Means Committee) BOTH turn out to be tax cheats.
#7 Only in America... can a terrorists, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shout out "Allahu Akbar", fire 214 rounds, kill 13 people and injure more than 30 all in the name of Allah, be labeled as "workplace violence".
#6 Only in America... would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege, while they discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally become American citizens. (probably should be number one)
#5 Only in America... could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the Constitution be called EXTREMISTS.
#4 Only in America... you need to present a driver's license to cash a check, buy alcohol or Claritin but not to vote. (I think it's perfectly fine to vote with your voter registration card or confirmation letter already in use but hey that's me.)
#3 Only in America... could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a typical U.S. Oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).
#2 Only in America... could you collect more tax dollars from the people than at any time in history, then spend a trillion dollars more than collected and complain that the government doesn't have enough.
#1 Only in America... could the "rich" - who pay 86% of all income taxes - be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Poll Workers Impact School Board Race!
Kim Melnyk showed the Republican Party of Virginia Beach, ALL of who supported Bill Brunke, how to run an effective grass roots campaign and take on the establishment. I'm so proud of her!
Two things really bother me. #1 the fact that Bill Brunke offered her something to drop out and #2 the level of stupidity to put that in an email. I don't want someone like that representing my city or me. Creepy and stupid is a deathblow and I'm so glad the voters figured this out.
Kim now owns the middle ground as a true conservative who earned the endorsement of the Virginia Beach Education Association Political Action Committee of Educators. I honestly believe there is nothing being endorsed by VBEA. They have endorsed conservatives before and thinking Kim will do their bidding is nonsense.
Brian Kirwin knows what down ticket poll workers can accomplish during an off year elections. When he ran for office and won one precinct there was a dedicated poll worker who toiled the whole day as an experiment basically proving poll workers can and do influence school board and city council races. Poor Bill Brunke basically got mugged at the polls and I’m betting he is still wondering how it happened.
If Kim votes to replace Dan Edwards as chairman, she has my 100% support. Dan is a retired LCDR who has repeatedly shown a lack of leadership and intellect. To his credit, he did exactly what he set out to do, fix the school budget and prevent surprises but that was so long ago you can’t even Google it. It’s high time for him to allow someone else to take the reins.
*** Update - Dan Edwards is no longer Chairman...
Two things really bother me. #1 the fact that Bill Brunke offered her something to drop out and #2 the level of stupidity to put that in an email. I don't want someone like that representing my city or me. Creepy and stupid is a deathblow and I'm so glad the voters figured this out.
Kim now owns the middle ground as a true conservative who earned the endorsement of the Virginia Beach Education Association Political Action Committee of Educators. I honestly believe there is nothing being endorsed by VBEA. They have endorsed conservatives before and thinking Kim will do their bidding is nonsense.
Brian Kirwin knows what down ticket poll workers can accomplish during an off year elections. When he ran for office and won one precinct there was a dedicated poll worker who toiled the whole day as an experiment basically proving poll workers can and do influence school board and city council races. Poor Bill Brunke basically got mugged at the polls and I’m betting he is still wondering how it happened.
If Kim votes to replace Dan Edwards as chairman, she has my 100% support. Dan is a retired LCDR who has repeatedly shown a lack of leadership and intellect. To his credit, he did exactly what he set out to do, fix the school budget and prevent surprises but that was so long ago you can’t even Google it. It’s high time for him to allow someone else to take the reins.
*** Update - Dan Edwards is no longer Chairman...
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
WHAT VOTER FRAUD?
I'm sorry individual voter fraud is not a thing.
The risk versus reward are just too great.
I've worked the polls for years and I've never witnessed voter fraud and I've been critical of the Republican Party's efforts to require ID at the polls.
That said it turns out that voter fraud maybe more widespread than I thought and requiring ID isn't going to stop it so why require an ID?
I will offer two cases that opened up my eyes:
In 1996 California Republican Congressman Bob Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez in an upset, by the narrow margin of 984. This margin was made up easily by illegal aliens voting and the government could prove this by bouncing the voter registration lists off the State departments list of none citizens apply for citizenship and green card holders.
Besides illegal aliens and green card holders voting we have folks, I'm guessing mostly older, voting in multiple states.
Kim Strach, the new director of North Carolina’s Board of Elections searched a database that comprises about half the registered voters in the U.S. and found 35,750 voters in her state whose first and last names and full date of birth match with someone in another state who also voted in the 2012 election.
Individual voter fraud... People walking into vote and saying they are someone they are not is NOT the problem and is a red herring that the Republican's are using to decrease Democratic turn out.
However, voter lists with felons, illegal aliens, green card holdess and folks who are voting twice should be addressed. The reality that the U.S. State Department will NOT share it's data base of green card holders and citizenship applicants with States to clean up the voter roles speaks volumes!
Once again the voting public's attention is on the shinny object when in fact there are other factors at work that need addressing.
I've worked the polls for years and I've never witnessed voter fraud and I've been critical of the Republican Party's efforts to require ID at the polls.
That said it turns out that voter fraud maybe more widespread than I thought and requiring ID isn't going to stop it so why require an ID?
I will offer two cases that opened up my eyes:
In 1996 California Republican Congressman Bob Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez in an upset, by the narrow margin of 984. This margin was made up easily by illegal aliens voting and the government could prove this by bouncing the voter registration lists off the State departments list of none citizens apply for citizenship and green card holders.
Besides illegal aliens and green card holders voting we have folks, I'm guessing mostly older, voting in multiple states.
Kim Strach, the new director of North Carolina’s Board of Elections searched a database that comprises about half the registered voters in the U.S. and found 35,750 voters in her state whose first and last names and full date of birth match with someone in another state who also voted in the 2012 election.
Individual voter fraud... People walking into vote and saying they are someone they are not is NOT the problem and is a red herring that the Republican's are using to decrease Democratic turn out.
However, voter lists with felons, illegal aliens, green card holdess and folks who are voting twice should be addressed. The reality that the U.S. State Department will NOT share it's data base of green card holders and citizenship applicants with States to clean up the voter roles speaks volumes!
Once again the voting public's attention is on the shinny object when in fact there are other factors at work that need addressing.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Bob McDonnell
I've known Bob for many years and the picture (from the Virginian Pilot) shows all the pain and worry he has been through. The jury meets again today and who knows when the verdict will be announced. The longer the wait I think it's more likely Bob will be found not-guilty.
Like everyone interested in Virginian politics, I have my reasons for wanting Bob to be found not guilty but in a nut shell 13 of the counts require that Bob knowingly agreed to help Mr. Williams because of bribes. As governor Bob tried to help everyone and I doubt he made such an agreement. If he did Bob sure didn't deliver which would go against his nature which makes me very inclined to believe Bob was being Bob and no "special" treatment was given Mr. Williams.
The count the Feds wanted him to plea guilty to and forgo trial was the lying on his loan application in that he didn't including his personal loans with Mr. Williams. I thought this was an easy conviction until it became known the mistake was corrected by Bob before the loan was underwritten and the final documents signed at closing were correct. I'm not even sure if the initial application is part of the official record and I'm a loan officer.
So my feeling is Bob will be found not guilty.
Maureen? Who knows...
***
Update - McDonnell guilty on 11 counts! Got this totally wrong. One thing that threw me off was the charge the Feds wanted him to plead guilty to (loan fraud), was the only charge he wasn't found guilty of. How is that possible?
***
Update - McDonnell is still not in prison while he works on his appeal. There is a good chance this whole thing could be overturned as the judge apparently didn't instruct the jury correctly. Time will tell and I'm making NO predictions.
***
December 8th, 2015 Update - McDonnell is still not in prison. Solicitor General recommends that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOUS) not hear his case.
***
January 15th, 2015 Update - McDonnell is still not in prison and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOUS) announces they will in fact hear his case. Bob accepted gifts, trips, vacations and no or low interest loans for a business friend of his wife. This was NOT illegal. No one has said accepting gifts (as long as they are reported) is illegal. In my mind I think accepting anything should be illegal but the law in Virginia is very clear on this and it's NOT. However, the jury found that Bob McDonnell gave this business man special access, etc.. and helped him with his Virginia based company.
I would argue that a Governor should do what he can to help businesses in his state... Right?
Now the Supreme Court is going to determine if politics as "commonly practiced" in the United States is illegal.
Think of it this way if a company wines and dines elected officials so they cast votes that reduce taxes, build roads, whatever... to help a company build a new plant in their state that is against the law. My thought is the court is going to take this matter seriously and reverse the lower courts decision or more likely send it back to the state to retry the case with different instructions and the state will decided not to try it again. So the Beemer's prediction is "remand".
***
June 27th, 2016 Update - The Supreme Court just unanimously reversed "remanded" the lower courts ruling... Bob is a free man!
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Nix corporate tax
The Virginian-Pilot
© August 23, 2014
RE 'IN A STEW over inversions' (George Will op-ed column, Aug. 17): Will's conclusion that 'the sensible corporate tax rate would be zero because corporations do not pay taxes they collect them' is right on.
I've been saying this since 1992 and now conclude that if people want Virginia to grow, something has to change.
The states with the fastest growth rates in the nation do not have an income tax. If our elected officials want to see economic growth close to that of those states, why not consider repealing Virginia's corporate tax?
Our lawmakers have failed to realize that North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have successfully passed laws to snag employers, employees and retirees from Virginia. It's time for Virginia to get smart, step up and pass laws that make our state more competitive.
© August 23, 2014
RE 'IN A STEW over inversions' (George Will op-ed column, Aug. 17): Will's conclusion that 'the sensible corporate tax rate would be zero because corporations do not pay taxes they collect them' is right on.
I've been saying this since 1992 and now conclude that if people want Virginia to grow, something has to change.
The states with the fastest growth rates in the nation do not have an income tax. If our elected officials want to see economic growth close to that of those states, why not consider repealing Virginia's corporate tax?
Our lawmakers have failed to realize that North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have successfully passed laws to snag employers, employees and retirees from Virginia. It's time for Virginia to get smart, step up and pass laws that make our state more competitive.
David Beemer
Virginia Beach
Monday, June 30, 2014
97% of Scientist agree with Anthropogenic Warming
When anyone says something is unquestionable, expecially politicians, you should remain skeptical. Remember Jimmy Carter and the national energy shortage? Peak Oil debunked again.
Using the best data available government agencies can't seem to agree on how much the Earth has actually warmed since 1900:
1.40 1.53 0.95 1.30 1.35 1.50 1.26 1.30 degrees Fahrenheit. It's interesting to note there is little agreement regarding temperature but many sources nail sea levels risen at about 8.5 inches per 100 years for the last 450 years.
Jacob Harold - William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Dr. Stephen H. Schneider - Department of Biology, Stanford
Note the degrees in red or lack of any degree.
However herein lies the problem. If you asked all the scientist who worked on the 1,372 papers the above authors reviewed what three gasses make up 99.964% of our atmosphere I know from experience very few of those asked would know the answer.
Using the best data available government agencies can't seem to agree on how much the Earth has actually warmed since 1900:
1.40 1.53 0.95 1.30 1.35 1.50 1.26 1.30 degrees Fahrenheit. It's interesting to note there is little agreement regarding temperature but many sources nail sea levels risen at about 8.5 inches per 100 years for the last 450 years.
So what is the source of the "97%" quote?
It's from the Abstract of Expert credibility in climate change - Sent for review December 22, 2009.
Jacob Harold - William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Dr. Stephen H. Schneider - Department of Biology, Stanford
Note the degrees in red or lack of any degree.
However herein lies the problem. If you asked all the scientist who worked on the 1,372 papers the above authors reviewed what three gasses make up 99.964% of our atmosphere I know from experience very few of those asked would know the answer.
FYI, the answer is Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon make up 99.964% of the Earth's atmosphere.
CO2 doesn't even make the list because it is measured in parts per million. At 400+ ppm it's a trace gas and will remain a trace gas regardless of what humans do. Even if we really tried we can't undo the 74 million year Carboniferous Period. That might sound radical but seriously think about how long it took to sequester all that CO2. Thinking mankind can reverse this in a few hundred years is beyond hubris.
CO2 doesn't even make the list because it is measured in parts per million. At 400+ ppm it's a trace gas and will remain a trace gas regardless of what humans do. Even if we really tried we can't undo the 74 million year Carboniferous Period. That might sound radical but seriously think about how long it took to sequester all that CO2. Thinking mankind can reverse this in a few hundred years is beyond hubris.
To put this into perspective CO2 readings in office buildings typically range between 600 and 800 ppm. I've been told CO2 levels in nuclear submarines hover around 5,000 ppm. Commercial green houses use CO2 generators to boost CO2 levels to 1500 ppm during the day for optimum plant growth. Yes green houses generate CO2 to increase production.
Consider all the science that has taken place in the last 100 years (starting with the discovery of the basic structure of the atom) it would seem foolish to think that energy production will be like it is today in say 80 years. Only science fiction writers have any inkling what the world will look like in the year 2200 when everyone I know will be long dead.
Don't get me wrong, our atmosphere is incredibly fragile but few of us understand how small a 1 in 10,000 (man's contribution is maybe half of this increase) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually is let alone what this tiny increase is capable of causing?
Consider all the science that has taken place in the last 100 years (starting with the discovery of the basic structure of the atom) it would seem foolish to think that energy production will be like it is today in say 80 years. Only science fiction writers have any inkling what the world will look like in the year 2200 when everyone I know will be long dead.
Don't get me wrong, our atmosphere is incredibly fragile but few of us understand how small a 1 in 10,000 (man's contribution is maybe half of this increase) increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually is let alone what this tiny increase is capable of causing?
If someone looks you in the eye and says they know what temperature increase is associated with a 100 ppm increase in CO2 they are lying.
History is full of scientific theories that were later proved to be just flat out wrong and theories that at first, if not for decades, were laughed at only to be later proven to be true.
A Hundred Authors Against Einstein (not really but that's the name of the book) concluded Einstein was wrong by consensus. You might want to ask the Japanese how that worked out.
History is full of scientific theories that were later proved to be just flat out wrong and theories that at first, if not for decades, were laughed at only to be later proven to be true.
A Hundred Authors Against Einstein (not really but that's the name of the book) concluded Einstein was wrong by consensus. You might want to ask the Japanese how that worked out.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Climate Deniers and Warmers are Both Wrong
It just dawned on me that the Climate Change argument has been framed incorrectly. I've seen the data and even though the last two decades don't show it, the long term trend is warming.
Deniers say warming isn't happening and go to great lengths to prove this but the data is conclusive.
Warmers are basing the warming on a 1 in 10,000 increase in atmospheric CO2
It's true glaciers have been shrinking since 1850. The earth has warmed about 1.32 degrees and sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900. During this time CO2 has increased 33% going from roughly 300 ppm to 400 ppm and this increase in CO2 is in man made based on studying the various CO2 isotopes.
These are the facts that I'm guessing 97% of all scientists agree on.
The "deniers" don't acknowledge the facts.
The "warmers" say it's CO2, man is responsible and we must slash emissions or else.
However, there is a third group which you haven't heard much from because they are the silent majority.
The silent majority acknowledges the data but observes glaciers started melting well before CO2 began increasing. Furthermore, this group is more pragmatic and acknowledges the odds a 1 in 10,000 increase in anything natural and essential for life is unlikely causing measurable harm.
Does the data show that the earth is warming? Yes - Not so much lately but the trend is an upward trend. Is it settled that a 1 in 10,000 increase in man made CO2 (total atmosphere model) in responsible? You make up your own mind.
PS Man doesn't create CO2 we are just releasing CO2 that was inadvertently sequestered millions of years ago when plants anaerobically decayed (decaying without the presence of oxygen as in under water in a swamp).
Deniers say warming isn't happening and go to great lengths to prove this but the data is conclusive.
Warmers are basing the warming on a 1 in 10,000 increase in atmospheric CO2
It's true glaciers have been shrinking since 1850. The earth has warmed about 1.32 degrees and sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900. During this time CO2 has increased 33% going from roughly 300 ppm to 400 ppm and this increase in CO2 is in man made based on studying the various CO2 isotopes.
These are the facts that I'm guessing 97% of all scientists agree on.
The "deniers" don't acknowledge the facts.
The "warmers" say it's CO2, man is responsible and we must slash emissions or else.
However, there is a third group which you haven't heard much from because they are the silent majority.
The silent majority acknowledges the data but observes glaciers started melting well before CO2 began increasing. Furthermore, this group is more pragmatic and acknowledges the odds a 1 in 10,000 increase in anything natural and essential for life is unlikely causing measurable harm.
Does the data show that the earth is warming? Yes - Not so much lately but the trend is an upward trend. Is it settled that a 1 in 10,000 increase in man made CO2 (total atmosphere model) in responsible? You make up your own mind.
PS Man doesn't create CO2 we are just releasing CO2 that was inadvertently sequestered millions of years ago when plants anaerobically decayed (decaying without the presence of oxygen as in under water in a swamp).
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Best Quote of the Day...
"I honestly believe that half the Republican's are Democrats and half the Democrats are Communists."
Unknown
Friday, May 9, 2014
Fed Chair Outlines the Reality of Debt
Most American's don't understand that our Federal Budget and Debt is going to ruin this country and likely take the world with it long before global warming, climate change or whatever "squirrel" we are currently focused on.
Fed Chair: Deficits Will Rise to Unsustainable Levels
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Tax the gas more
The Virginian-Pilot
© May 3, 2014
If you want a measure of how ineffective and spineless our elected officials are, you don't have to look any further than the gas tax. It's a pure user tax that levies proportionally according to use and encourages conservation and new technologies. Our roads and bridges are in disrepair in part because elected officials haven't raised the federal gas tax since 1993. A first-class postage stamp cost 29 cents in 1993 and 49 cents today. If you apply this rate of inflation to the federal gas tax, it should be 31.1 cents, or 12.7 cents more.
Only four states have lower gas taxes than Virginia. Adding 12.7 cents to a gallon of gas averaging $3.47 in Hampton Roads would represent just a 3.7 percent increase in the price. This increase would hurt for about a week, versus President Barack Obama's recent suggestion of allowing states to toll the interstate highway system. A gas tax increase doesn't require any bureaucracy, but politicians love bureaucracy and think the New Jersey Turnpike model is by far the better solution.
Why can't our politicians make a single logical decision? Fixing the deficient bridges across the United States would cost just $76 billion. Why not create jobs fixing roads and bridges?
David Beemer
Virginia Beach
© May 3, 2014
Tax the Gas More
If you want a measure of how ineffective and spineless our elected officials are, you don't have to look any further than the gas tax. It's a pure user tax that levies proportionally according to use and encourages conservation and new technologies. Our roads and bridges are in disrepair in part because elected officials haven't raised the federal gas tax since 1993. A first-class postage stamp cost 29 cents in 1993 and 49 cents today. If you apply this rate of inflation to the federal gas tax, it should be 31.1 cents, or 12.7 cents more.
Only four states have lower gas taxes than Virginia. Adding 12.7 cents to a gallon of gas averaging $3.47 in Hampton Roads would represent just a 3.7 percent increase in the price. This increase would hurt for about a week, versus President Barack Obama's recent suggestion of allowing states to toll the interstate highway system. A gas tax increase doesn't require any bureaucracy, but politicians love bureaucracy and think the New Jersey Turnpike model is by far the better solution.
Why can't our politicians make a single logical decision? Fixing the deficient bridges across the United States would cost just $76 billion. Why not create jobs fixing roads and bridges?
David Beemer
Virginia Beach
Thursday, April 24, 2014
US reporter Simon Ostrovsky Captured in Ukraine
Dear Secretary Kerry,
I'm very concerned about the safety of US reporter Simon Ostrovsky.
While filming in Slavyansk, Ukraine Simon was captured by pro-Russian forces and hasn't been seen since the morning of April 22rd. He has filed 29 reports on the ongoing invasion of Ukraine and was doing his best to tell this story as it unfolds.
Do what you can do and know that History does repeat.
You help is greatly appreciated,
Dave
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
CO2 Math
Math is the universal language
of science and search as you might you will not find a unified equation
explaining how trace amounts of CO2, measured in parts per million, interact with the atmosphere to cause a specific amount of warming. Scientists know that water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, etc... act as greenhouses gases. The question I have is the calculated radiative forcing of these trace gases correct?
If we put "X" tons of CO2 into the air what will be the global increase in temperature be? Furthermore, is 100% of the increase man-made?
Millions of years to hundreds of thousands of years to just as recently as the last ice age roughly 10,000 years ago (roughly... we don't actually have definitive dates for the last ice age?) aren't able to be modeled when it comes to atmospheric CO2.
Climate scientists are using predictive modeling, various equations and super computers in ways similar to how hurricanes and hurricane seasons are predicted. Considering scientist can back feed about 800,000 years of atmospheric composition, air and water temperature data into these predictive models and NOT "predict" much of anything makes me wonder. If we can't accurately model the past how can we predict the future?
There is no doubt that mankind has released CO2 that was once in the atmosphere but the "locked" up by long dead plants. There has been a 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1900 to roughly 400 ppm. That without man there was already an increase in CO2 occurring due to a warming Earth... Remember the North was covered in ice 10,000 years ago and we are still warming from that event.
How much of the CO2 increase is man-made or man caused? That's a good question and I've read anything from 100% to as little as 25%. I'm going to suggest man contribution to the ongoing increase in CO2 to be around 50%. This
increase in CO2 has resulted in global temperature rise over the last 3000 years is what "Climate Deniers" latch on to and will not let go.
Instead of using computer models imagine a 10,000 square meter sealed box inside in a climate controlled building. At the top of the box there is a sun like heat source which turns on and off representing the sun. In that box you place 7808 square meters of Nitrogen, 2095 square meters of Oxygen, 93 square meters of Argon, 3 square meters of CO2 and various square inches of the other trace gases.
Do you think adding another square meter of CO2 would change anything?
I
would argue that building any atmospheric model like the one above,
adding water vapor which the IPCC excludes, to empirically measure
changes that increasing CO2 by 33% - from 3 to 4 parts in 10,000 would
produce better results than billions of dollars and thousands of
scientist have gotten with their modeling.
Here is 10,000 super balls being dropped... Now imagine that one more black one is added... That's your entire atmospheric CO2 increase since 1900.
Blaming 150 years of glacial melt, a 1.33 degree Fahrenheit increase and 8 inches of sea level rise on a 100 ppm increase in CO2 using computer models that can't accurately predict weather a few months in advance, that don't take water vapor into consideration isn't something I want the worlds governments spending trillions of dollars on.
If the world governments feel compelled to spend trillions why not go after things that we absolutely know are destroying our planet. From deforestation of the worlds rain forests, to over fishing and of course developing countries like China who are killing their population with massive air, water and soil pollution.
If we put "X" tons of CO2 into the air what will be the global increase in temperature be? Furthermore, is 100% of the increase man-made?
Millions of years to hundreds of thousands of years to just as recently as the last ice age roughly 10,000 years ago (roughly... we don't actually have definitive dates for the last ice age?) aren't able to be modeled when it comes to atmospheric CO2.
Climate scientists are using predictive modeling, various equations and super computers in ways similar to how hurricanes and hurricane seasons are predicted. Considering scientist can back feed about 800,000 years of atmospheric composition, air and water temperature data into these predictive models and NOT "predict" much of anything makes me wonder. If we can't accurately model the past how can we predict the future?
There is no doubt that mankind has released CO2 that was once in the atmosphere but the "locked" up by long dead plants. There has been a 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1900 to roughly 400 ppm. That without man there was already an increase in CO2 occurring due to a warming Earth... Remember the North was covered in ice 10,000 years ago and we are still warming from that event.
How much of the CO2 increase is man-made or man caused? That's a good question and I've read anything from 100% to as little as 25%. I'm going to suggest man contribution to the ongoing increase in CO2 to be around 50%. This
increase in CO2 has resulted in global temperature rise over the last 3000 years is what "Climate Deniers" latch on to and will not let go.
Instead of using computer models imagine a 10,000 square meter sealed box inside in a climate controlled building. At the top of the box there is a sun like heat source which turns on and off representing the sun. In that box you place 7808 square meters of Nitrogen, 2095 square meters of Oxygen, 93 square meters of Argon, 3 square meters of CO2 and various square inches of the other trace gases.
Do you think adding another square meter of CO2 would change anything?
What do you think will happen?
What about water vapor that makes up 95% of all green house gasses?
What about water vapor that makes up 95% of all green house gasses?
Here is 10,000 super balls being dropped... Now imagine that one more black one is added... That's your entire atmospheric CO2 increase since 1900.
Blaming 150 years of glacial melt, a 1.33 degree Fahrenheit increase and 8 inches of sea level rise on a 100 ppm increase in CO2 using computer models that can't accurately predict weather a few months in advance, that don't take water vapor into consideration isn't something I want the worlds governments spending trillions of dollars on.
If the world governments feel compelled to spend trillions why not go after things that we absolutely know are destroying our planet. From deforestation of the worlds rain forests, to over fishing and of course developing countries like China who are killing their population with massive air, water and soil pollution.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Zombie Idea
"Zombie idea - It's an idea that should have been killed by evidence, but refuses to die." Paul Krugman, NY Times
A 33% increase in CO2 is responsible for climate change (formerly global warming) which on the surface (no pun intended) makes logical sense until someone points out that this is a 1 in 10,000 increase in the atmosphere on whole.
Yep, CO2 is a TRACE gas measured in PPM and we have gone from 3 in 10,000 to 4 in 10,000 parts in our atmosphere since modern man.
When science is declared settled by theologians and politicians is safe to say it's not settled. When science blurs with religion and politics it begs one question... Who is John Galt?
Sorry I had a Zombie spasm...
A 33% increase in CO2 is responsible for climate change (formerly global warming) which on the surface (no pun intended) makes logical sense until someone points out that this is a 1 in 10,000 increase in the atmosphere on whole.
Yep, CO2 is a TRACE gas measured in PPM and we have gone from 3 in 10,000 to 4 in 10,000 parts in our atmosphere since modern man.
When science is declared settled by theologians and politicians is safe to say it's not settled. When science blurs with religion and politics it begs one question... Who is John Galt?
Sorry I had a Zombie spasm...
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Afordable Heath Care Act Changes
Recently the Obama administration extended the March 31 enrollment deadline for those that began, but could not complete, an application for health insurance on the Healthcare.gov website. To get additional time, applicants need only check a box on the Healthcare.gov website to indicate they tried to enroll prior to the deadline. So when will the 2014 enrollment period actually end? Your guess is as good as mine... Never?
With all the changes, the 90 day payment grace period, etc... It's likely the American public will not know the actual numbers of who signed up, who paid, ages, premiums, newly covered, previously covered, cost, etc... until the end of July, if ever. If you run into someone who supports the ACA I suggest that you ask them - "That's awesome, did YOU get coverage through the website?" With the number of actual sign ups, it's highly likely you are talking to a theoretical supported and not someone with actual experience of this cluster frack.
I tried over and over and eventually signed up, never got an email confirmations, got three (later four) enrollment packets and ID cards and a call from the new provider. I couldn't keep my doctor and couldn't even find a dentist in my city who would accept the ACA HMO coverage. When I canceled my plan it refused to cancel and took months of calling, emailing, chatting and more calling to work this out and just today, I think, just maybe... I hope... I've finally gotten everything back to how it was before I ventured onto the "marketplace of death."
The ACA concept is one that I support. The ACA implementation has been horrible and I'm sorry to say, based on my experience of government as a Naval Office and Software Test Engineer I wasn't in the least surprised by any of this. Not sure if more time will help, but I do know that changing deadlines isn't how you fix things. Fingers cross because I will be back shopping on the government website in the fall.
Significant changes to the ACA:
March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline - the end of enrollment for 2014 - will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances. (Anyone with a user name and password)
March 14: High-risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was supposed to last only until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.
Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.
Jan. 14: High-risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.
Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.
Dec. 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.
Nov. 27: Small Business Health Options Program (known as SHOP) delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.
Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.
July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.
Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision it announced just one day before the original deadline.
March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline — the end of enrollment for 2014 — will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances.
March 14: High-risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was supposed to last only until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.
Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.
Jan. 14: High-risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.
Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.
Dec. 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.
Nov. 27: Small Business Health Options Program (known as SHOP) delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.
Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.
July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.
Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision it announced just one day before the original deadline.
Quoted from: www.politico.com
PS I just got an email from the White House touting the ACA and the reduced costs of insurance from a long term Republican and PhD. As I said before, I'm a supporter of the principle behind the ACA. I think society is better served when those of us, who for a meriod of reasons can't get or afford health care have health care. Be it a child of a poor family or young lady who develops cancer in college, health care isn't a right but access to qaulity health care benfits all. Which leads me to the question no one seems to be asking:
AT WHAT COST?
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 cost $831,000,000,000 and in the second quarter of 2012, the CBO estimated, somewhere between 200,000 to 1.2 million people have jobs they otherwise would not have were it not for the stimulus.
In the best case we are looking at a cost to the taxpayer of $692,500 per job. REALLY?
My prediction is the ACA will prove to be as inefficient as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Government is rarely the solution and more often government is the problem. We must elect those who understand this and are willing to do the work needed so that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
With all the changes, the 90 day payment grace period, etc... It's likely the American public will not know the actual numbers of who signed up, who paid, ages, premiums, newly covered, previously covered, cost, etc... until the end of July, if ever. If you run into someone who supports the ACA I suggest that you ask them - "That's awesome, did YOU get coverage through the website?" With the number of actual sign ups, it's highly likely you are talking to a theoretical supported and not someone with actual experience of this cluster frack.
I tried over and over and eventually signed up, never got an email confirmations, got three (later four) enrollment packets and ID cards and a call from the new provider. I couldn't keep my doctor and couldn't even find a dentist in my city who would accept the ACA HMO coverage. When I canceled my plan it refused to cancel and took months of calling, emailing, chatting and more calling to work this out and just today, I think, just maybe... I hope... I've finally gotten everything back to how it was before I ventured onto the "marketplace of death."
The ACA concept is one that I support. The ACA implementation has been horrible and I'm sorry to say, based on my experience of government as a Naval Office and Software Test Engineer I wasn't in the least surprised by any of this. Not sure if more time will help, but I do know that changing deadlines isn't how you fix things. Fingers cross because I will be back shopping on the government website in the fall.
Significant changes to the ACA:
March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline - the end of enrollment for 2014 - will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances. (Anyone with a user name and password)
March 14: High-risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was supposed to last only until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.
Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.
Jan. 14: High-risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.
Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.
Dec. 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.
Nov. 27: Small Business Health Options Program (known as SHOP) delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.
Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.
July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.
Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision it announced just one day before the original deadline.
March 25: Final enrollment deadline extended. The March 31 deadline — the end of enrollment for 2014 — will be loosened for people with special sign-up circumstances.
March 14: High-risk pools extended. The special, temporary coverage for people with serious pre-existing conditions — which was supposed to last only until the health insurance exchanges were in place — was extended a third time for another month.
Feb. 10: Employer mandate delayed. This time, businesses with between 50 and 100 workers were given until 2016 to offer coverage, and the mandate will be phased in for employers with more than 100 workers.
Jan. 14: High-risk pools extended. The high-risk insurance pools, which originally had been slated to close Jan. 1, had already been extended once.
Dec. 24: Enrollment deadline extended. In a message on HealthCare.gov, customers were told they could get help finishing their Jan. 1 applications if they were already in line on Dec. 24.
Dec. 12: Enrollment deadline extended. Customers on the federal enrollment website were given nearly two more weeks to sign up for coverage effective Jan. 1.
Nov. 27: Small Business Health Options Program (known as SHOP) delayed. Online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses was delayed.
Nov. 21: Open enrollment delayed for 2015. The administration pushed back next year’s enrollment season by a month.
July 2: Employer mandate delayed. The administration declared that it wouldn’t enforce the fines in 2014 for businesses with more than 50 full-time workers who don’t offer health coverage. The fines were pushed back to 2015.
Nov. 15, 2012: Exchange deadline delayed. The Department of Health and Human Services gave states an extra month to decide whether they would set up their own health insurance exchanges — a decision it announced just one day before the original deadline.
Quoted from: www.politico.com
PS I just got an email from the White House touting the ACA and the reduced costs of insurance from a long term Republican and PhD. As I said before, I'm a supporter of the principle behind the ACA. I think society is better served when those of us, who for a meriod of reasons can't get or afford health care have health care. Be it a child of a poor family or young lady who develops cancer in college, health care isn't a right but access to qaulity health care benfits all. Which leads me to the question no one seems to be asking:
AT WHAT COST?
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 cost $831,000,000,000 and in the second quarter of 2012, the CBO estimated, somewhere between 200,000 to 1.2 million people have jobs they otherwise would not have were it not for the stimulus.
In the best case we are looking at a cost to the taxpayer of $692,500 per job. REALLY?
My prediction is the ACA will prove to be as inefficient as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Government is rarely the solution and more often government is the problem. We must elect those who understand this and are willing to do the work needed so that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Sea Levels Will Rise 5 feet in next 86 years - BS!
"Leaders float plan to find ways to deal with sea rise" Virginian-Pilot March 21, 2104
In Friday's paper Ben McFarlane was quoted saying sea levels could rise 5 feet by 2100 which is total BS. Mr. McFarlane has served on HRPDC since 2008 and is our Regional Planner. How can someone in this leadership position be so absolutely clueless when it comes to the science and projections of our local sea level rise.
Portsmouth, Virginia - The mean sea level trend is 3.76 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.45 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1935 to 1987 which is equivalent to a change of 1.23 feet in 100 years.
Sewells Point - The mean sea level trend is 4.44 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.27 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1927 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 1.46 feet in 100 years.
In Hampton Roads half of the rise is due to subsidence or settling associated with tidal areas and deltas. Looking at NOAA's sea level data it's evident that Northern latitudes are still rebounding from the weight of the last glaciation and the data for geological stable areas indicate sea level has risen 8 inches since 1900 which is consistent with the observed post glaciation warming.
Our school children our taught the Chesapeake bay is the drowned, ancestral valley of the Susquehanna River. As the earth warms the drowning continues and the most resent IPCC predictions are maxed out at 2.6 feet or 3 feet with subsidence with a consensus of half that.
If we are going to pick a number out of the air, why not pick 10 feet or 20 feet and plan for that? NOAA's prediction is sea levels will rise in Hampton Roads by 1.5 feet in the next 100 years and this is what we need to plan for not what ever Mr. McFarlane dreams up to scare the locals.
In Friday's paper Ben McFarlane was quoted saying sea levels could rise 5 feet by 2100 which is total BS. Mr. McFarlane has served on HRPDC since 2008 and is our Regional Planner. How can someone in this leadership position be so absolutely clueless when it comes to the science and projections of our local sea level rise.
Portsmouth, Virginia - The mean sea level trend is 3.76 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.45 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1935 to 1987 which is equivalent to a change of 1.23 feet in 100 years.
Sewells Point - The mean sea level trend is 4.44 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.27 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1927 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 1.46 feet in 100 years.
In Hampton Roads half of the rise is due to subsidence or settling associated with tidal areas and deltas. Looking at NOAA's sea level data it's evident that Northern latitudes are still rebounding from the weight of the last glaciation and the data for geological stable areas indicate sea level has risen 8 inches since 1900 which is consistent with the observed post glaciation warming.
Our school children our taught the Chesapeake bay is the drowned, ancestral valley of the Susquehanna River. As the earth warms the drowning continues and the most resent IPCC predictions are maxed out at 2.6 feet or 3 feet with subsidence with a consensus of half that.
If we are going to pick a number out of the air, why not pick 10 feet or 20 feet and plan for that? NOAA's prediction is sea levels will rise in Hampton Roads by 1.5 feet in the next 100 years and this is what we need to plan for not what ever Mr. McFarlane dreams up to scare the locals.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Eastern Ukraine Will Fall Without Miltary Aid
Ukrainian is divided by the Dnieper River with mostly
Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East.
It's no mystery that Vladimir Putin will likely invade the Eastern half of Ukraine and declare it Russian. Right now the Ukrainian army is no match and it's likely, like Crimea, they may not even offer resistance.
The European Union and the United States should take
immediate actions to bolster the Ukrainian army with the following defensive
equipment:
FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles
FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles
German lightweight Fly-K mortar systems
In addition, basic support such as uniforms, tents, mobile
kitchens, MREs, small arms, ammunition (especially artillery rounds), etc… including logistic support and training
should be offered by all democracies interested in preventing a continued Russian
advancement into Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Moldova and Estonia.
Time is precious and the Ukrainian military needs training and arms to
ensure a Russian incursion into Ukrainian territory would be too costly to consider. “Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons.” General MaCarthur
Monday, March 17, 2014
FAA-2012-0731-0008
"Your comment will be viewable on Regulations.gov after the agency has
reviewed it, which may be an indefinite amount of time. Use your
tracking number (1jy-8b0e-kk6c) to find out the status of your comment." FAA
Here is my comment on AD FAA-2012-0731-0008:
We completed this AD on our 1972 PA-32-300 last March and I'm still angry. I'm angry because the FAA, once again, grossly under estimated the cost of AD compliance.
FAA - Inspection of the horizontal stabilator control system takes 5 hours.
FAA - Replacement of stabilator control cable per set at $1,558 parts and labor.
The AD specifically instructs the mechanic to inspect the cables and it would seem that FAA believes this can be done without removal. I talked to three shops and none of them would sign off on the work unless the cables were removed and inspected. I carefully read the AD, looked at diagrams, talked to mechanics and it was clear, removal was necessary. Two of the three shops strongly suggested it would be cost effective to skip the inspection and just purchase new cables which we did.
So the reality of this AD isn't a cable inspection. It's the removal and replacement of two sets of cables which the FAA estimates the cost to be $3,116.
If the mechanics I talked to and my analysis of what needs to be done as per the AD are correct, using the FAA numbers the compliance of this AD will cost Piper owners over $105,984,508!
You should budget more closer to $3,500 to $4,000 and use a shop experienced in this repair.
FYI, our cables were stretched but had no corrosion. It's clear the previous inspection requirement, if done, was good enough but there should be something more the FAA could do to make it clear this was a serious problem in lieu of a full blown $125 million repair.
When you look at the real cost of this AD, the amount of work needed, the hard physical labor, rubber mallet hammering alone... The cable replacement was absolutely a back breaker and it makes you wonder how many cable replacements will result in subsequent problems?
On the flip side, during the AD we took the opportunity to remove, paint and reinstall the horizontal stabilator which turned out to have significantly worn bushings. The result was a much tighter trim control and a horizontal stabilator with zero flutter/slop which improved performance.
Here is my comment on AD FAA-2012-0731-0008:
We completed this AD on our 1972 PA-32-300 last March and I'm still angry. I'm angry because the FAA, once again, grossly under estimated the cost of AD compliance.
FAA - Inspection of the horizontal stabilator control system takes 5 hours.
FAA - Replacement of stabilator control cable per set at $1,558 parts and labor.
The AD specifically instructs the mechanic to inspect the cables and it would seem that FAA believes this can be done without removal. I talked to three shops and none of them would sign off on the work unless the cables were removed and inspected. I carefully read the AD, looked at diagrams, talked to mechanics and it was clear, removal was necessary. Two of the three shops strongly suggested it would be cost effective to skip the inspection and just purchase new cables which we did.
So the reality of this AD isn't a cable inspection. It's the removal and replacement of two sets of cables which the FAA estimates the cost to be $3,116.
If the mechanics I talked to and my analysis of what needs to be done as per the AD are correct, using the FAA numbers the compliance of this AD will cost Piper owners over $105,984,508!
You should budget more closer to $3,500 to $4,000 and use a shop experienced in this repair.
FYI, our cables were stretched but had no corrosion. It's clear the previous inspection requirement, if done, was good enough but there should be something more the FAA could do to make it clear this was a serious problem in lieu of a full blown $125 million repair.
When you look at the real cost of this AD, the amount of work needed, the hard physical labor, rubber mallet hammering alone... The cable replacement was absolutely a back breaker and it makes you wonder how many cable replacements will result in subsequent problems?
On the flip side, during the AD we took the opportunity to remove, paint and reinstall the horizontal stabilator which turned out to have significantly worn bushings. The result was a much tighter trim control and a horizontal stabilator with zero flutter/slop which improved performance.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Inbound Washington D.C.
Many Americans don't realize that small General Aviation (GA) planes can and often do land at every large public airport in the United States with the exception of one... Reagan National in Washington, D.C.
From Dulles to Dallas, JFK to LAX, large airports, combined with small GA airports serve General Aviation and the public at large. Even if you have never been to a small GA airport there is a good chance the person flying you home for Thanksgiving trained at one.
The Coast Guard, Air Force, Army and even the Navy (just one) have air bases open to General Aviation so why is Regan National closed?
Just prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 the FAA temporarily closed a huge chunk of airspace around Washington D.C. as a precaution. In 2006 the FAA issued a Notice proposing the temporary rules become permanent and subsequently over 20,000 responses were received, of which the vast majority were in opposition to making the temporary rules permanent.
There were two public hearings and every speaker, expert and common pilot alike was opposed, yet without Congressional approval the air space around D.C. was essentially shut down permanently to GA traffic, aka the flying public. Originally the closure involved over 11,000 square miles impacting 33 General Aviation airports but the FAA later reduced this to roughly 2,800 square miles impacting just four airports consisting of three in Maryland called the "Maryland Three" and Reagan National.
If you take an online course, submit to a federal background check, get fingerprinted at Reagan National, report in person to the FAA field office at BWI and meet with one the Maryland Three security officers you will likely be assigned a special code and phone number to use when filing a flight plan into the Maryland Three. However, Reagan National still remains off limits.
There was a time when pictures like the one above were common place. Our Capital was open to the public on the ground and sky. Many pilots for years have argued the Washington DC Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) is unnecessary That it's harmful to the economy of small airports and aviation-related businesses in the greater Washington D.C. area. Pilots involved in law enforcement have described the SFRA as a "major, unnecessary burden on pilots and air traffic controllers with almost no increased security benefits."
Why, if experts believe there is little or no increase in security do we, the people tolerate yet another erosion of our supposedly free society? I would argue that this erosion of our freedom goes beyond the ability of pilots to fly into Reagan National. We as a nation are continually giving up rights and feedoms when our government and leaders convince us it's for our own good, our own safety.
The safety argument closing Reagan National is false and yet Congress fails to act. Being lulled by a false sense of security carries it's own risk as much as the continued erosion of our rights, afforded to us by the free society we think we live in. As Benjamin Franklin said “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
From Dulles to Dallas, JFK to LAX, large airports, combined with small GA airports serve General Aviation and the public at large. Even if you have never been to a small GA airport there is a good chance the person flying you home for Thanksgiving trained at one.
The Coast Guard, Air Force, Army and even the Navy (just one) have air bases open to General Aviation so why is Regan National closed?
Just prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 the FAA temporarily closed a huge chunk of airspace around Washington D.C. as a precaution. In 2006 the FAA issued a Notice proposing the temporary rules become permanent and subsequently over 20,000 responses were received, of which the vast majority were in opposition to making the temporary rules permanent.
There were two public hearings and every speaker, expert and common pilot alike was opposed, yet without Congressional approval the air space around D.C. was essentially shut down permanently to GA traffic, aka the flying public. Originally the closure involved over 11,000 square miles impacting 33 General Aviation airports but the FAA later reduced this to roughly 2,800 square miles impacting just four airports consisting of three in Maryland called the "Maryland Three" and Reagan National.
If you take an online course, submit to a federal background check, get fingerprinted at Reagan National, report in person to the FAA field office at BWI and meet with one the Maryland Three security officers you will likely be assigned a special code and phone number to use when filing a flight plan into the Maryland Three. However, Reagan National still remains off limits.
There was a time when pictures like the one above were common place. Our Capital was open to the public on the ground and sky. Many pilots for years have argued the Washington DC Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) is unnecessary That it's harmful to the economy of small airports and aviation-related businesses in the greater Washington D.C. area. Pilots involved in law enforcement have described the SFRA as a "major, unnecessary burden on pilots and air traffic controllers with almost no increased security benefits."
Why, if experts believe there is little or no increase in security do we, the people tolerate yet another erosion of our supposedly free society? I would argue that this erosion of our freedom goes beyond the ability of pilots to fly into Reagan National. We as a nation are continually giving up rights and feedoms when our government and leaders convince us it's for our own good, our own safety.
The safety argument closing Reagan National is false and yet Congress fails to act. Being lulled by a false sense of security carries it's own risk as much as the continued erosion of our rights, afforded to us by the free society we think we live in. As Benjamin Franklin said “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Senate Democrats Plan Climate Change Filibuster
I'm one of those pesky scientists (by education) that say the 33% increase in atmospheric C02 is
due to man, the Earth is warming and sea levels are rising. But I
also point out man's CO2 contribution represents just a tiny 1 in 10,000 increase when correctly compared to the entire atmosphere.
The Earth isn't Venus and if someone can explain how a $1 dollar increase in a $10,000 budget is responsible for increased temperatures and sea levels over the last 100 years, I would be greatly interested. FYI, PFM doesn't work for me.
Basic math, like knowing what three gases make up 99.96% of the atmosphere, seem beyond nearly everyone I talk with.
My suggestion? Let's do something productive and help China and India build and retrofit their coal fired electrical plants with state of the art scrubbers. :-)
PS 78.082687 + 20.945648 + .933984 = 99.962319
The Earth isn't Venus and if someone can explain how a $1 dollar increase in a $10,000 budget is responsible for increased temperatures and sea levels over the last 100 years, I would be greatly interested. FYI, PFM doesn't work for me.
Basic math, like knowing what three gases make up 99.96% of the atmosphere, seem beyond nearly everyone I talk with.
My suggestion? Let's do something productive and help China and India build and retrofit their coal fired electrical plants with state of the art scrubbers. :-)
PS 78.082687 + 20.945648 + .933984 = 99.962319
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
