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
Ignoring the Cost of Offshore Drilling
This Sunday's edition of the Pilot’s Opinion section pointed
out federal law prevents Virginia
from earning oil royalties from off shore wells. The writers conclude Virginia shouldn’t allow drilling and risk
ruining our beaches if there is no economic benefit for the Commonwealth.
Most of us drive cars, heat, cool and light our homes. We take warm showers, wash our dishes, listen
to the radio, surf the web and watch TV - thanks to fossil fuels. Only 13% of our power is renewable compared to 63% for Canada. With the US ban on coastal drilling combined
with the powerful environmental movement, you would think offshore wind would
naturally be very popular but unfortunately it costs three times as much and
evidently there is no “real” political will to make this happen.
We all want clean energy but few are taking a stand. We have natural seepage off the coast of California, that scientist say can be reduced by drilling - but the politics aren’t right. Experts say that you can’t safely drill in coastal waters but it's done all over the world. If the practice is so environmentally unfriendly why do we accept oil shipped from Nigeria and offshore Angola? Until the North Dakota Bakken's come on line, nearly the entire East Coast runs on Nigerian and Angolan light sweet crude which begs the question, why is OK to drill off the coast of Africa but not America?
The off shore drilling moratorium continues, not because it’s can’t be
done safely, but because there are no royalties for the state?
What is wrong with America? The last GDP numbers indicate America is growing an anemic 2.4% annually and the national debt will top $18,000,000,000,00 by the end of 2014. How much longer can we hobble along with the belief we can’t safely produce our own energy at home and that somehow it’s better for the environment to drill in someone else's back yard and then ship it here?
What is wrong with America? The last GDP numbers indicate America is growing an anemic 2.4% annually and the national debt will top $18,000,000,000,00 by the end of 2014. How much longer can we hobble along with the belief we can’t safely produce our own energy at home and that somehow it’s better for the environment to drill in someone else's back yard and then ship it here?
Last September Dominion Virginia Power won a huge a $1.6 million lease to build the first wind farm off the coast of Virginia with a project
start not until 2023. Without support from Federal
and State government this wind farm is dead before the first piling is driven. Pile
on the Navy's objections, environmental group opposition and you can bet Virginia will never see anything but an offshore test sit. The last serious wind company in Virginia gave up and moved to the coast of Spain.
For starters let’s get the basic seismic testing done and see what
we are dealing with. Next, if it’s natural
gas lets drill ASAP. If it’s methane hydrates, let’s talk to Japan and figure how they figured out how to mine their huge deposits of methane hydrates. If it’s oil lets take our time and figure out how to get at it
in the safest way possible.
Unless you want to leave your car in the garage, wake up to a freezing home, give up air conditioning, toss out all your appliances, unplug from the net and turn off your TV, it’s time to wake up and smell the orderless gas we exhale, that's necessary for all green plants on the planet. When the President ran I believed him when he repeatedly said our energy policy would be "all of the above." Let’s make wind and solar a national priority by developing our offshore resources and use the royalties to develop and subsidize renewable energy in the states who are risking their shorelines.
Unless you want to leave your car in the garage, wake up to a freezing home, give up air conditioning, toss out all your appliances, unplug from the net and turn off your TV, it’s time to wake up and smell the orderless gas we exhale, that's necessary for all green plants on the planet. When the President ran I believed him when he repeatedly said our energy policy would be "all of the above." Let’s make wind and solar a national priority by developing our offshore resources and use the royalties to develop and subsidize renewable energy in the states who are risking their shorelines.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
US Navy Below 250 Warships?
The only thing Navy experts agree upon is our 100% track
record of not knowing what the next conflict is going to look like or be
fought with. It's now clear that this and subsequent administrations will continue
reducing the Navy's 283 ship fleet while adding three flawed Littoral Combat
ships, two insanely expensive Virginia class submarines and a few capable,
yet untested, Zumwalt class Destroyers.
At a cost of $2.7 billion, I fear future leaders will not be willing to put the Virginia class submarines in harms way. Also the only current threat to U.S. submarines are the inherently quiet (batteries don't make noise) modern diesel electric submarines which have been purchased by China and hostile nations for as little as $200 million.
Converted submarines give battle commanders needed stealth, submerged protection, unmatched fire power and the ability to covertly insert Special Forces. The SSGN's have proven themselves in combat and I would argue having fourteen converted Los Angeles class SSGN's along with an extra four Ohio class SSGN's for the price of two insanely expensive Virginia class SSN's and three flawed Littoral Combat ships is more than a bargain. Lastly, having more "boats" will continue to develop the #1 weapon in the Navy's arsenal... The men and women who serve.
PS I was a surface warfare officer for eight years. I've never served on a submarine but conducted exercises and war games with them and frankly it was never a fair fight which is why, if the Navy continues to shrink, we need more subs.
Jim Hansen - Not the Muppet Guy
Mr. Jim Hansen attended my dad's alma mater, the University of Iowa, and graduated with a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics in 1963. He earned a M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics in 1967. He was a graduate trainee with NASA and headed NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York City, from 1981 to retirement in 2013.
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate and in no doubt our current understanding of global warming.
While working with NASA he was key in formulating the model that explains why Venus is the way it is - a run away green house planet with an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2. His work on Venus became the template for modeling the Earth's atmosphere, with CO2 as one of the driving mechanisms to global warming.
James Hansen is the father of our understanding of CO2 and how it interacts and serves as a green house gas.
The near freezing of the Great Lakes in 2014 or the 17 years upper atmosphere warming pause notwithstanding, over the last 100 years the Earth has warmed and sea levels have risen. In part, thanks to James Hansen, nearly all scientists believe man's releasing of sequestered C02, via the burning of fossil fuels, is responsible for this trend.
Two things:
#1 The Earth is NOT Venus!
#2 Does anyone honestly believe that a 1 in 10,000 increase in any atmospheric gas has cause the warming we have seen over the last 100 years?
The model James Hansen developed was for Venus with a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere, not Earth with .039680% CO2 atmosphere.
If you can envision a parcel of air being equal to $10,000, man's total CO2 contribution equals $1 dollar. That's right, before man, CO2 was three and now with all human activity to date, it has risen to four. Do you really think a $1 increase in a $10,000 budget is having a measurable impact?
There is little doubt this 33% increase is man made. The latest IPPC report projects that in the next 100 years CO2 concentrations will double and change the world as we know it. Meaning we are to believe scientists can predict 100 years into the future and that CO2 at 8 out of 10,000 beckons a global melt down. Besides spending trillions to "solve" this, the best thing the world can do is stop using coal (the worst of the worst) to produce electricity. Hogwash!
N - 78.084%
O - 20.946%
Ar - .9340%
CO2 - .039680% as of 2014
CO2 - .080000% as of 2114 (IPPC's 4th Report)
Some how common sense doesn't fit into the equation. Politicians, scientist, the media, etc... are collectively telling us a $1 increase in the atmospheric budget of $10,000 has caused our recent droughts, warming, sea level rise and super storms. Furthermore, it's only going to get worse. This is accepted as settled science only because the vast majority of the worlds population is scientifically uneducated. Common sense can't be applied because the basic foundation in science is nonexistent among the population. Scientists who embrace the 33% CO2 increase, ignore the atmospheric budget and use computer models based on Venus to predict the future for 100 years flummox me.
Take a breath and think... 100 years is a long time. The only thing that doesn't change is change and new discoveries we can't even imagine will occur. I have a warm feeling that man made climate change isn't going to be what we are talking about in 20 years, let alone the year 2114. I recommend that we focus on helping developing nations, specifically China, India, Pakistan and most African countries clean up their air, water and land as I'm certain the planet can't handle another 100 years of their collective environmental damage.
There are currently 2,300 coal powered electrical stations in the world with 1200 more currently in the planning stage, of which 75% will be built in China and India. Let's spend money today helping developing countries build modern coal fired plants with the latest in scrubbing technology while funding basic research in new, sustainable, clean energy technologies.
A lot can happen in 100 years!
1913 The discover of the atom's structure
1920 First radio broadcast
1924 Edwin Hubble discovers the first new galaxy besides our own
1927 Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe
1928 Alexander Fleming discovers penicillin
1929 Edwin Hubble puts forward the theory of the expanding universe
1931 Cyclotron invented to study accelerated particles
1932 James Chadwick describes the nucleus of the atom
1942 Enrico Fermi demonstrates the first controlled nuclear reaction
1945 The first electronic computer
1947 William Shockley invents the transistor
1953 The double helix structure of DNA discovered
1957 The Soviet Union launches the Sputnik satellite
1960 Stephen Hawking publishes Grand Unified Theory
1964 Murray Gell-Man predicts the existence of quarks
1969 Man walks on the moon
1975 US university campuses linked by computer network
1971 Intel makes the first commercial computer microprocessor
1990 The World Wide Web is born
1990 Hubble space telescope launched
1996 Dolly the sheep cloned
1997 Scientists accurately predict El Niño
2003 Completion of the Human Genome Project
2004 Facebook founded mainstreaming social media
2005 Predictions of Peak Oil adjusted... again
2010 The Large Hadron Collider's first high power collisions
2012 Physicists statistically demonstrated the Higgs boson
2013 Private companies resupply the International Space Station
2014 United States energy self-sufficient... (not yet but close)
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate and in no doubt our current understanding of global warming.
While working with NASA he was key in formulating the model that explains why Venus is the way it is - a run away green house planet with an atmosphere of 96.5% CO2. His work on Venus became the template for modeling the Earth's atmosphere, with CO2 as one of the driving mechanisms to global warming.
James Hansen is the father of our understanding of CO2 and how it interacts and serves as a green house gas.
The near freezing of the Great Lakes in 2014 or the 17 years upper atmosphere warming pause notwithstanding, over the last 100 years the Earth has warmed and sea levels have risen. In part, thanks to James Hansen, nearly all scientists believe man's releasing of sequestered C02, via the burning of fossil fuels, is responsible for this trend.
Two things:
#1 The Earth is NOT Venus!
#2 Does anyone honestly believe that a 1 in 10,000 increase in any atmospheric gas has cause the warming we have seen over the last 100 years?
The model James Hansen developed was for Venus with a 96.5% CO2 atmosphere, not Earth with .039680% CO2 atmosphere.
If you can envision a parcel of air being equal to $10,000, man's total CO2 contribution equals $1 dollar. That's right, before man, CO2 was three and now with all human activity to date, it has risen to four. Do you really think a $1 increase in a $10,000 budget is having a measurable impact?
There is little doubt this 33% increase is man made. The latest IPPC report projects that in the next 100 years CO2 concentrations will double and change the world as we know it. Meaning we are to believe scientists can predict 100 years into the future and that CO2 at 8 out of 10,000 beckons a global melt down. Besides spending trillions to "solve" this, the best thing the world can do is stop using coal (the worst of the worst) to produce electricity. Hogwash!
N - 78.084%
O - 20.946%
Ar - .9340%
CO2 - .039680% as of 2014
CO2 - .080000% as of 2114 (IPPC's 4th Report)
Some how common sense doesn't fit into the equation. Politicians, scientist, the media, etc... are collectively telling us a $1 increase in the atmospheric budget of $10,000 has caused our recent droughts, warming, sea level rise and super storms. Furthermore, it's only going to get worse. This is accepted as settled science only because the vast majority of the worlds population is scientifically uneducated. Common sense can't be applied because the basic foundation in science is nonexistent among the population. Scientists who embrace the 33% CO2 increase, ignore the atmospheric budget and use computer models based on Venus to predict the future for 100 years flummox me.
Take a breath and think... 100 years is a long time. The only thing that doesn't change is change and new discoveries we can't even imagine will occur. I have a warm feeling that man made climate change isn't going to be what we are talking about in 20 years, let alone the year 2114. I recommend that we focus on helping developing nations, specifically China, India, Pakistan and most African countries clean up their air, water and land as I'm certain the planet can't handle another 100 years of their collective environmental damage.
There are currently 2,300 coal powered electrical stations in the world with 1200 more currently in the planning stage, of which 75% will be built in China and India. Let's spend money today helping developing countries build modern coal fired plants with the latest in scrubbing technology while funding basic research in new, sustainable, clean energy technologies.
A lot can happen in 100 years!
1913 The discover of the atom's structure
1920 First radio broadcast
1924 Edwin Hubble discovers the first new galaxy besides our own
1927 Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe
1928 Alexander Fleming discovers penicillin
1929 Edwin Hubble puts forward the theory of the expanding universe
1931 Cyclotron invented to study accelerated particles
1932 James Chadwick describes the nucleus of the atom
1942 Enrico Fermi demonstrates the first controlled nuclear reaction
1945 The first electronic computer
1947 William Shockley invents the transistor
1953 The double helix structure of DNA discovered
1957 The Soviet Union launches the Sputnik satellite
1960 Stephen Hawking publishes Grand Unified Theory
1964 Murray Gell-Man predicts the existence of quarks
1969 Man walks on the moon
1975 US university campuses linked by computer network
1971 Intel makes the first commercial computer microprocessor
1990 The World Wide Web is born
1990 Hubble space telescope launched
1996 Dolly the sheep cloned
1997 Scientists accurately predict El Niño
2003 Completion of the Human Genome Project
2004 Facebook founded mainstreaming social media
2005 Predictions of Peak Oil adjusted... again
2010 The Large Hadron Collider's first high power collisions
2012 Physicists statistically demonstrated the Higgs boson
2013 Private companies resupply the International Space Station
2014 United States energy self-sufficient... (not yet but close)
Monday, February 24, 2014
Charles Krauthammer Under Attack
Ever since my Naval Academy days I've loved the Washington Post and not just for the awesome Sunday comics. I cherish the Post for continuing to publish quality, thoughtful journalism and editorials.
I’m writing in support of Charles Krauthammer. In a recent editorial Charles summed up the “global warming/climate change” argument very well by stating from the onset he isn’t a believer or denier but is interested in keeping the conversation going. That settled science isn’t in the true nature of the scientific method. I think the petition circulating to demand the Washington Post stop carrying his editorials is the worst form of censorship.
My daughter, who has studied Mars for years and one day wants to go there, never misses a chance to point out that NASA has reported the Martian South Pole carbon dioxide ice cap has been shrinking for years. So is the Earth warming and are sea levels rising? I think it’s safe to say yes, but is man the cause or more importantly for this debate is an increase from 290 ppm to 400 ppm in CO2 causing this? I’m a scientist by degree and I choose, like my daughter the chemist, to remain skeptical and maintain an open mind to all possibilities.
I’m writing in support of Charles Krauthammer. In a recent editorial Charles summed up the “global warming/climate change” argument very well by stating from the onset he isn’t a believer or denier but is interested in keeping the conversation going. That settled science isn’t in the true nature of the scientific method. I think the petition circulating to demand the Washington Post stop carrying his editorials is the worst form of censorship.
My daughter, who has studied Mars for years and one day wants to go there, never misses a chance to point out that NASA has reported the Martian South Pole carbon dioxide ice cap has been shrinking for years. So is the Earth warming and are sea levels rising? I think it’s safe to say yes, but is man the cause or more importantly for this debate is an increase from 290 ppm to 400 ppm in CO2 causing this? I’m a scientist by degree and I choose, like my daughter the chemist, to remain skeptical and maintain an open mind to all possibilities.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Global Warming gives way to Climate Change
As frigid polar air shatters records across the United States, the
timing of Michael Mann's recent Virginian-Pilot "other views" climate
change article was at best unfortunate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the Earth isn't warming or sea levels aren't rising, I'm just saying CO2 and specifically humanities contribution is not the primary driver of this warming as "97%' of scientists have concluded.
Nearly forty years ago, Wally Broecker coined the term global warming. Mr. Mann, the creator of the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph", didn't mention global warming once in his latest missive. It would seem the global warming scientific community has shifted gears to embraced climate change.
I'm a scientists (BS Physical Science, USNA '87) with a pilots license with an instrument rating, who has studied the atmosphere for many years. I've experienced how fragile our atmosphere is up close and I acknowledge that C02 and CH4, measured in parts per million and parts per billion respectively, are green house gases. However, these green house gasses pale in comparison to H20. Water Vapor is by far the mother of all green house gasses and yet receives only a passing mention in the IPCC's most recent 2,216 page assessment of climate change and NO mention at all in the executive summery which mentions CO2 seventy-four times. I think it's laughable how scientist will argue that CO2 will raise temperature, thus raise the amount of water vapor in the air but fail to mention more water vapor = more clouds = less warming.
The recent cold snap or an unusually cold winter shouldn't be used as proof that global warming doesn't exist any more than Mr. Mann's assertion that Super Storm Sandy is the result of man's cumulative CO2 production. Over the millennia Paleoclimatologists have documented warmer and cooler periods and even 200 year North American droughts. Regardless of how amazing global warming/climate change computer modeling is, the non-linear nature of weather is notoriously hard to model and the magnitude of the assumptions needed for climate change to manifest as advertized would shock even the most skeptic global warming/climate change denier.
When scientists settle on a single computer model that can accurately predict a hurricanes track a few days in advance, I will give more credence to the IPCC's 100 year predictions. Until then, I will continue to focus on pollution and environmental changes that directly impact our environment and relegate CO2 to it's rightful place as a tiny contributor to global warming/climate change while I brace for the next wicked cold snap.
* Note - I acknowledge the "CC" in IPCC stands for Climate Change. But the scare mongers latched on to global warming like a hungry lioness grasping a gazelle... The glaciers are melting! Greenland is next! Yes glaciers are melting and so is Greenland. The difference being there is no mention that it's going to take 4000 to 5000 thousand years for Greenland to melt. Oh by the way NASA is scrambling to disprove their own study... Antarctica is gaining ice.
Nearly forty years ago, Wally Broecker coined the term global warming. Mr. Mann, the creator of the infamous "Hockey Stick Graph", didn't mention global warming once in his latest missive. It would seem the global warming scientific community has shifted gears to embraced climate change.
I'm a scientists (BS Physical Science, USNA '87) with a pilots license with an instrument rating, who has studied the atmosphere for many years. I've experienced how fragile our atmosphere is up close and I acknowledge that C02 and CH4, measured in parts per million and parts per billion respectively, are green house gases. However, these green house gasses pale in comparison to H20. Water Vapor is by far the mother of all green house gasses and yet receives only a passing mention in the IPCC's most recent 2,216 page assessment of climate change and NO mention at all in the executive summery which mentions CO2 seventy-four times. I think it's laughable how scientist will argue that CO2 will raise temperature, thus raise the amount of water vapor in the air but fail to mention more water vapor = more clouds = less warming.
The recent cold snap or an unusually cold winter shouldn't be used as proof that global warming doesn't exist any more than Mr. Mann's assertion that Super Storm Sandy is the result of man's cumulative CO2 production. Over the millennia Paleoclimatologists have documented warmer and cooler periods and even 200 year North American droughts. Regardless of how amazing global warming/climate change computer modeling is, the non-linear nature of weather is notoriously hard to model and the magnitude of the assumptions needed for climate change to manifest as advertized would shock even the most skeptic global warming/climate change denier.
When scientists settle on a single computer model that can accurately predict a hurricanes track a few days in advance, I will give more credence to the IPCC's 100 year predictions. Until then, I will continue to focus on pollution and environmental changes that directly impact our environment and relegate CO2 to it's rightful place as a tiny contributor to global warming/climate change while I brace for the next wicked cold snap.
* Note - I acknowledge the "CC" in IPCC stands for Climate Change. But the scare mongers latched on to global warming like a hungry lioness grasping a gazelle... The glaciers are melting! Greenland is next! Yes glaciers are melting and so is Greenland. The difference being there is no mention that it's going to take 4000 to 5000 thousand years for Greenland to melt. Oh by the way NASA is scrambling to disprove their own study... Antarctica is gaining ice.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Privatize Virginia's ABC Stores
Kerry Dougherty's recent column in the Virginian Pilot "Let's Party Like It's 1933" reminded me of Governor McDonnell's abortive attempt to privatize Virginia's ABC stores. It's likely the Governor wasn't pleased when I rallied against his proposal to sell spirits at local stores. It's not that I didn't agree the Governor's basic principle that the "state" shouldn't be selling booze. I just didn't want kids watching me put a 5th of Jim Beam in my Walmart shopping cart.
Being from one of the 32 states that don't have "sterile state-run liquor stores" I absolutely know Virginia should end its active role in the distribution of distilled spirits. But McDonnell's concept swung the political pendulum too far and was defeated before it could gain traction.
Four years ago we had 322 ABC stores that effectively made the purchase of hard liquor an adult endeavor. Selling licenses to business and removing a few thousand people from the state payroll, health care and retirement system seemed like a no-brainer.
Let's get the state out of the business of booze, but please don't make it so mainstream that it is being sold at the local supermarket which effectively creates ZERO jobs.
Virginia should become the 33rd state to allow private liquor stores and end our current state run monopoly.
Being from one of the 32 states that don't have "sterile state-run liquor stores" I absolutely know Virginia should end its active role in the distribution of distilled spirits. But McDonnell's concept swung the political pendulum too far and was defeated before it could gain traction.
Four years ago we had 322 ABC stores that effectively made the purchase of hard liquor an adult endeavor. Selling licenses to business and removing a few thousand people from the state payroll, health care and retirement system seemed like a no-brainer.
Let's get the state out of the business of booze, but please don't make it so mainstream that it is being sold at the local supermarket which effectively creates ZERO jobs.
Virginia should become the 33rd state to allow private liquor stores and end our current state run monopoly.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Is Virginia Beach Morphing into a Police State?
For 22 years I’ve lived in Virginia Beach and last night I got my first speeding ticket. The flashing lights indicated I missed the 50 to 45 mph speed reduction on the new Princess Anne road, driving East to the courthouse. This newly finished section of road is state of the art and I was one of four tickets being written by four separate cruisers with a roving supervisor keeping tabs on the situation. Of course this was a construction zone... with no construction equipment, personal or cones.
The once dangerous two lane road, with the occasional released prisoner walking on the nonexistent shoulder, has been replaced with a state of the art divided four lane thoroughfare with a seperate bike path that puts most highways to shame. However, the speed was reduced from 55 to 45 mph for the construction and I'm guessing it will remain this way until VDOT turns the road over to the city. In the mean time it's pretty clear this stretch of road will continue to generated hundreds of tickets until outrage mounts.
Note: I later determined that the VA Beach Police Department was using this stretch of road to train new police officers. WTF
Red light and face recognition cameras, new roads that double as police ticketing training grounds and not being able to have a pager at a high school football game (told you I’ve lived here a long time) all add up to a slow erosion of our freedom. It’s time that we roll back the clock and remove the red light and face recognition cameras. It’s time city council reviews these and other programs in light of what’s going on in our country and make changes to enhance individual freedom. For starters, it would make sense to reevaluate using Princess Anne as a ticketing training ground and stop writing meaningless tickets that only serve to inflame the public.
PS Red light cameras... Consider removing the right turn on red enforcement while keeping the dangerous blowing through the intersection ticket. It turns out that the red light cameras mostly generate right turn on tickets which are not a safety issue. Right Turn on Red Stats
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Snowden - Man of the Year... Almost
Mr. Snowden for right or wrong has exposed just how far, in the name of national security, the government has gone as it continues to pummel the 4th Amendment.
In 1979 the Supreme Court created the "third-party doctrine" which still applies today. Without a specific warrant government cannot access the content of mail and consequently email. However, Mr. Snowden has exposed the NSA is tapping the main trunk lines of Google, Yahoo, Micorsoft, etc... and it's likely the contents of our correspondence is computer processed and then stored away like phone call metadata.
Under current law if you freely gave information to a third party, be it your local library, credit card company, VIP grocery account, Google, banker or phone company your data and activity are likely NOT protected by the Fourth Amendment. There may be privacy issues against sharing this information, but typically there is no constitutional protection, and it is often very easy for government "agencies" to gather these third party records without you ever being notified.
More than likely, Mr. Snowden hasn't revealed the full extent of the NSA's data gathering capability but the enormity of the facilities being constructed out West would indicate that every credit card transaction, internet search, email, phone call metadate, etc... Is being collected and filtered in real time, within days or just stored for future searches. It's 100% clear to me that our privacy if not our constitutional rights are being trampled upon.
Man of the Year? I don't think so, but clearly Mr. Snowden has started the conversation.
In 1979 the Supreme Court created the "third-party doctrine" which still applies today. Without a specific warrant government cannot access the content of mail and consequently email. However, Mr. Snowden has exposed the NSA is tapping the main trunk lines of Google, Yahoo, Micorsoft, etc... and it's likely the contents of our correspondence is computer processed and then stored away like phone call metadata.
Under current law if you freely gave information to a third party, be it your local library, credit card company, VIP grocery account, Google, banker or phone company your data and activity are likely NOT protected by the Fourth Amendment. There may be privacy issues against sharing this information, but typically there is no constitutional protection, and it is often very easy for government "agencies" to gather these third party records without you ever being notified.
More than likely, Mr. Snowden hasn't revealed the full extent of the NSA's data gathering capability but the enormity of the facilities being constructed out West would indicate that every credit card transaction, internet search, email, phone call metadate, etc... Is being collected and filtered in real time, within days or just stored for future searches. It's 100% clear to me that our privacy if not our constitutional rights are being trampled upon.
Man of the Year? I don't think so, but clearly Mr. Snowden has started the conversation.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
My Own Health Care Debacle
After trying for weeks on October 28th I was able to enroll in the the Health Care Market Place. Once I understood the coverage, the cost and that my doctor would not accept this insurance I decided to dump it and immediately started the process of trying to cancel on line, via chat, via phone and finally by calling the Optima who told me to contact the Health Care Market Place.
The other day three duplicate confirmation packets arrived so it would seem my efforts to cancel failed.
Thankfully, before the deadline I applied for a new, not ACA complaint, Optima PPO policy that cost much less, has lower deductibles and a prescription drug benefit.
I'm "HOPEFUL" the Health Care Market Place or a private company that is ACA compliant will offer something similar to my current plan next year. My current not ACA complaint plan covers my daughter to age twenty six, has reasonable deductibles, no life time caps and subsidized prescriptions but cannot be renewed.
If I go without healthcare the Fed will fine me 1% of my income in 2014, growing to a 2.5% be 2016.
*** Update Feb 10, 2014 - No matter what I do the healthcare market place will not cancel my policy! Even worse, though I haven't paid a dime on this new policy, the "Market Place" reaches out and cancels my current policy... Repeatedly. I keep contacting the Health Care Market Place and my carrier. This has been a complete cluster (rhymes with duck)!
*** Update Feb 11, 2014 - I can't believe it... I got yet another package, my 4th, from the "Market Place" and this time a bill... My 1st bill for nearly $800 bucks. The people causing this are beyond incompetent. It's been months and I'm still trying to get my the insurance the "Market Place" cancelled reinstated... ARG!!!
*** Update March 21, 2014 - It looks like the ACA policy was canceled. I stroked a check for $1,127 to my not ACA compliant new policy and I'm now paid to date. With the exception of having to pay the first $250 of my daughters medication it seems like a pretty darn good policy that's only good for this year. :-(
*** Update March 26, 2014 - The last hurdle was my "Market Place" dental plan. Turns out it's a HMO that not a single local dentist accepts. It was supposed to be canceled when the health care was canceled but that didn't happen.
*** Update April 11, 2018 - My not ACA compliant plan was only good for one year and I ended up bypassing the Market Place and calling a local company and asking for a ACA compliant policy. I had that for just under three years and never used it... Never. Why? The deductibles were so high. It basically was a really expensive major medical plan.
In conclusion... I was hopeful that the ACA would work. I really wanted it to work. Bottom line it sucks and maybe it's time we get government and employers out of providing insurance. If everyone (except the young, old and military) had to buy their own coverage maybe market forces would work. The poor? Spend the billions we are waisting in the Market Place on free clinics!
The other day three duplicate confirmation packets arrived so it would seem my efforts to cancel failed.
Thankfully, before the deadline I applied for a new, not ACA complaint, Optima PPO policy that cost much less, has lower deductibles and a prescription drug benefit.
I'm "HOPEFUL" the Health Care Market Place or a private company that is ACA compliant will offer something similar to my current plan next year. My current not ACA complaint plan covers my daughter to age twenty six, has reasonable deductibles, no life time caps and subsidized prescriptions but cannot be renewed.
If I go without healthcare the Fed will fine me 1% of my income in 2014, growing to a 2.5% be 2016.
*** Update Feb 10, 2014 - No matter what I do the healthcare market place will not cancel my policy! Even worse, though I haven't paid a dime on this new policy, the "Market Place" reaches out and cancels my current policy... Repeatedly. I keep contacting the Health Care Market Place and my carrier. This has been a complete cluster (rhymes with duck)!
*** Update Feb 11, 2014 - I can't believe it... I got yet another package, my 4th, from the "Market Place" and this time a bill... My 1st bill for nearly $800 bucks. The people causing this are beyond incompetent. It's been months and I'm still trying to get my the insurance the "Market Place" cancelled reinstated... ARG!!!
*** Update March 21, 2014 - It looks like the ACA policy was canceled. I stroked a check for $1,127 to my not ACA compliant new policy and I'm now paid to date. With the exception of having to pay the first $250 of my daughters medication it seems like a pretty darn good policy that's only good for this year. :-(
*** Update March 26, 2014 - The last hurdle was my "Market Place" dental plan. Turns out it's a HMO that not a single local dentist accepts. It was supposed to be canceled when the health care was canceled but that didn't happen.
*** Update April 11, 2018 - My not ACA compliant plan was only good for one year and I ended up bypassing the Market Place and calling a local company and asking for a ACA compliant policy. I had that for just under three years and never used it... Never. Why? The deductibles were so high. It basically was a really expensive major medical plan.
In conclusion... I was hopeful that the ACA would work. I really wanted it to work. Bottom line it sucks and maybe it's time we get government and employers out of providing insurance. If everyone (except the young, old and military) had to buy their own coverage maybe market forces would work. The poor? Spend the billions we are waisting in the Market Place on free clinics!
Monday, December 9, 2013
The ACA Violates the Constitution
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) violated the Constitution’s Origination Clause because it raised revenue but did not “originate” in the House of Representatives.
Under the United States Constitution’s Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1): “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Senate Democrats attempted to satisfy the Origination Clause when passing Obamacare. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3590, which was a small bill granting tax credits for veterans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped out every word of the veteran tax credit bill and replaced it with the ACA that ultimately passed Congress without a single republican vote and was signed by President Obama. The ACA includes billions in new revenue which the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius as taxes.
Senator Reed knew substituting every word of the veteran tax credit bill with the ACA was wrong but the only path he could take to get the ACA passed. It doesn't surprise me that our President has also selectively implemented the ACA and many other laws during the last five years. The President has "modified" or "suspended" laws that only Congress can change, further empowering the executive branch of government.
The republican's in the House fought long and hard to repeal the ACA but right before the government shut down they admitted defeat and sent the Senate a bill keeping the government open that included a delay in the implementation of the ACA's personal mandate.
The Senate voted 54-46 to strip this language from the House funding bill which resulted in a sixteen day (the third longest) government shutdown. A shut down that could have been adverted by a delay in the personal mandate that the President, under pressure from fellow Democrats, has since allowed but Executive Letter.
I think it's important to know that throughout history our government has been out of money for a total of 128 days and that Democrats have been responsible for the vast majority of this.
Even with Pesident Carter, both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats the government ran out of money five separate times totaling 57 days. It's funny to note somehow the government really NEVER shut down during this time.
Under the United States Constitution’s Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clause 1): “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
Senate Democrats attempted to satisfy the Origination Clause when passing Obamacare. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3590, which was a small bill granting tax credits for veterans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped out every word of the veteran tax credit bill and replaced it with the ACA that ultimately passed Congress without a single republican vote and was signed by President Obama. The ACA includes billions in new revenue which the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius as taxes.
Senator Reed knew substituting every word of the veteran tax credit bill with the ACA was wrong but the only path he could take to get the ACA passed. It doesn't surprise me that our President has also selectively implemented the ACA and many other laws during the last five years. The President has "modified" or "suspended" laws that only Congress can change, further empowering the executive branch of government.
The republican's in the House fought long and hard to repeal the ACA but right before the government shut down they admitted defeat and sent the Senate a bill keeping the government open that included a delay in the implementation of the ACA's personal mandate.
The Senate voted 54-46 to strip this language from the House funding bill which resulted in a sixteen day (the third longest) government shutdown. A shut down that could have been adverted by a delay in the personal mandate that the President, under pressure from fellow Democrats, has since allowed but Executive Letter.
I think it's important to know that throughout history our government has been out of money for a total of 128 days and that Democrats have been responsible for the vast majority of this.
Even with Pesident Carter, both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats the government ran out of money five separate times totaling 57 days. It's funny to note somehow the government really NEVER shut down during this time.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
23andMe Genetic Testing
Alberto Gutierrez
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Dear Mr. Gutierrez,
I’ve recently learned that the FDA has determined the
genetic test kit from 23andMe are “intended for use in the diagnosis…” as per
21 U.S.C. 321(h). Does the FDA truly
think the public will take a $99 test and use it as the sole basis for
self-diagnoses?
“… if the BRCA-related risk assessment for breast or ovarian
cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo
prophylactic surgery…”
It seems your office believes women wouldn’t consult their
physician when alerted by this test and or physicians wouldn’t seek
confirmation before prophylactic surgery. Are you kidding? I’ve read your recent
letter to 23andMe and your argument is flawed and goes against the mission of
the FDA:
“… responsible for advancing the public health by helping to
speed innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more
affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based
information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their
health.”
Regardless of spin you are essentially banning affordable
genetic screening. Your actions have
consequences and history will be your judge.
I spent four hundred dollars to get my family tested. Had that cost been just 50% more I wouldn’t
have done it. Requiring premarket
approval for genetic screening will further destroy this fledgling
industry and is NOT aligned with the rapidly changing technology of this field.
Your letter states that you have conducted 14 face-to-face
and teleconference meetings, sent hundreds of emails, and dozens of
letters. Which begs the question - was
23andMe at those meetings and responding to your emails and letters? Clearly 23andMe isn’t trying to avoid the
FDA and their use of CLIA certified labs indicates they have taken steps to
comply with FDA guidelines.
While false positives have consequences that I’ve personally
witnessed the net benefit of mass screenings is too great to ignore and I
couldn’t imagine a more effective way to rapidly determine accuracy than to let
the testing proceed with a strong “Surgeon General’s” like warning that the
results are preliminary.
Sincerely,
Dave
Monday, November 18, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
From the Democratic Leader
What's In The Health Care Reform Bill For You?
July 14, 2009
July 14, 2009
Without reform, the cost of health care for the average family of four is projected to rise $1,800 every year for years to come--and insurance companies will make more health care decisions.
America's middle class deserves better. Here's what America's Affordable Health Choices Act means for you:
LOWER COSTS ** NOPE - Millions are paying more
No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care ** True
No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation ** True
An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses ** True
Group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan ** True
Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids ** Not sure
GREATER CHOICE ** NOPE **
Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them ** No & No
More choice, public health insurance option competing with private insurers ** No
HIGHER QUALITY ** NOPE **
You and your doctors make health care decisions -- not insurance companies ** Not sure
More family doctors and nurses will enter the workforce, helping guarantee access ** No
Mental health care must be covered ** True
STABILITY & PEACE OF MIND ** YEP **
No more coverage denials for pre-existing conditions ** True
No more lifetime limits on how much insurance companies will pay ** True
No reason to ever make a job or life decision again based on health care coverage ** True
http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/reports/whatquotemarks-health-care-reform-bill-you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
