American Elephants


And Obama’s Words, Tripping Him Up.

Obama demands military trial for KSM

But that was then and this is now.  Do they not understand the dangers and the consequences, or do they just not care?

(h/t: Breitbart.com)



It’s Often the Words of Our Mouth That Trip Us Up.

At National Review Online, Ramesh Ponnuru commented a few days ago in the Corner:

In the primaries, Obama distinguished himself from Clinton on health care by opposing an individual mandate. In the general election, he distinguished himself from McCain by opposing taxes on health benefits. So now he is trying to pass bills with both an individual mandate and taxes on health benefits—and his supporters are saying that Congress should go along because he won the election.



Ah, The Warm Memories of Family Gathered for Thanksgiving:
November 26, 2009, 3:42 am
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Entertainment, Humor, Politics, The Elephant's Child | Tags: , ,


Meet Dr. Roy Spencer, Celebrated Climatologist.

Dr. Roy Spencer is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.  He is also a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. (Try getting all that on a business card).  They supply the temperatures that we can count on.  He has testified before Congress a number of times, and he is the author of Climate Confusion , a perfectly splendid book that we recommend in the sidebar.

In the book, Dr. Spencer explains in simple terms just how the climate system works and what we know about it and what we don’t know.  No wild claims, a mild voice for a climate skeptic, that much denigrated type of individual, quite a few cartoons, and only a couple of simple graphs — the kind devised for laymen.  It is a good read, and illuminating in the nicest way.

Dr. Spencer has a website where he both talks about the latest global temperature anomaly, but also explains “Global Warming 101.”  He has a great sense of humor as well, as a visit to The Eco Enquirer will show.

Here are a few of his comments on the elitist roots of global warming alarmism:

The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).

Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us. (…)

A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means. (…)

Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.

Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?

Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

You can find the whole essay here, as well as the guide to Global Warming 101.



Will the Scandal of ClimateGate Change Anything?

Attaching the “gate” syllable to any hint of scandal, is a quick but trite way to say “pay attention, this is a scandal.”  ClimateGate is a big one, but easily misunderstood.  Climate “skeptics” do not claim that there has been no global warming.  They quite agree that over the 20th century the earth warmed by around one degree.

The earth is always warming and cooling.  The argument exists entirely about computer climate models that project a drastic warming in the future.  Skeptics point out that the earth has been cooling since 2003, as the sun has gone quiet with almost no sunspots and there has been no warming at all for at least ten years. Climate models are unreliable, unable to predict today’s climate.

Skeptical scientists point out that  increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere follow increases in temperature, and therefore cannot be the cause of global warming.  As the earth has cooled , the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb.  But not to worry, CO2 is not a pollutant, only a trace gas.  The much-feared “greenhouse gases” are composed largely of water vapor — clouds, fog, mist.

Scientists are human, and have all the flaws that the rest of us have.  Greed, covetousness, laziness, ambition and a tendency to make mistakes.  Some of the best hypotheses just don’t prove out.  The emails and documents of ClimateGate indicate a fair amount of that, but some fraud and attempts to silence those who disagree as well.  The big deal is what governments and the media have done with the misinformation.

The quantity of things on which governments have rushed to spend trillions  to prevent climate change,  banish carbon dioxide, prevent dangerous rise of the seas,  ban the drilling for carbon-based fossil fuels, tax the economy into poverty with cap-and-trade laws — is almost endless.  The list goes on and on.  I saw a photo yesterday of a Dutch ship spraying sand which the tide would carry in to reinforce the dikes that protect the Netherlands against the rise of the seas predicted by computer climate models. This is costing billions, and the seas won’t rise.

Europe is far deeper into the religion of global warming than we are, but governments believe far more than their people do.  It is hard to tell if government bureaucracies actually believe that climate change is a real problem, or if they just believe in using a ‘crisis’ to gain power and increase taxes.  I think it is safe to assume that our representatives do not go home at night, after a hard day of failing to read the legislation they vote for, to study up on the science  of climate change.

Carol Browner, socialist climate czar, said that “the science is settled.” Nothing to see here — just move along.  She added that she would stick with the “consensus” of the 2,500 (what?) climate scientists on the IPCC.  (Ms. Browner, the UN’s IPCC states clearly on their website that they do not do original science).   And there is no “consensus” in science.  See Scientific Method.

Well, there you have it.  Obama will go to Copenhagen and promise to reduce CO2, which will only happen if the economy falters further.  The EPA and the Department of Energy will  spend vast sums encouraging solar energy, which will produce small amounts of energy only when the sun shines.  They will spend even more on wind energy, which will continue to produce only a miniscule amount of our energy needs when heavily subsidized.  Nothing will change.  The “science is settled,” and “consensus” rules.



The Scientific Method, or How the Scientific World is Supposed to Work!

In the wake of the ClimateGate scandal, it’s worth reviewing the Scientific Method, with a graph borrowed shamelessly from Watts Up With That, Anthony Watts’ splendid website.  As the emails and documents are exposed, the cry from the University of East Anglia’s CRU is about villains stealing documents, taken out-of-context, misunderstood, criminal theft and so on and so on.

Those who have their careers, reputation, prestige and livelihood invested in the concept of dangerous global warming, quickly remind us that all scientists except worthless skeptics confirm that global warming is real and the world is warming, heating up, getting hotter while the rest of us turn the furnace up a little higher and wonder why it was snowing in October.  There is “Consensus” among scientists, you know, “peer-reviewed” scientists: and you must never listen to or read what a scientist who has not been “peer-reviewed” has to say.

Except that isn’t the way science works.  1,000 scientists can have a “consensus” and it doesn’t matter a whit.  What matters is the evidence, and the experiments that support the hypothesis, and the further experiments that also support the hypothesis and so on.

Just something to keep in mind.



The Latest Word on ClimateGate.
November 24, 2009, 10:56 pm
Filed under: Entertainment, Humor, Junk Science, Politics, The Elephant's Child

Dr. Michael Mann is Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and the author of the widely discredited “hockey-stick” graph, which has misled so many about global warming. Graphs are all very fine, but a little check with history would make it clear that there really was a Medieval Warm Period from around 800 to 1400. Vikings really did farm in Greenland, and it was a lot warmer than it has been today. There was also a Little Ice Age when it was a lot colder. Dr. Mann has a lot to answer for.

The funny folks at Minnesotans for Global Warming strike back:



Cool Science Video of the Day

Another little amazing fact I’ll bet you didn’t know.  This is really cool!

(h/t: Kim Komando)



ClimateGate: Destroying the Claims of the Climate Alarmists One by One.

An enormous scandal is roiling the scientific world.  A researcher, investigating the climate numbers behind anthropogenic global warming, had filed a Freedom of Information request to look at the data behind recent claims, from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), and was met with stalling, refusal, files not available, that sort of thing.

A hacker broke into the University’s CRU and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.  The files include 1,079 emails and 72 documents exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing the anthropogenic global warming theory.  Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed in an interview that they are genuine.

The emails suggest manipulation of evidence, destruction of evidence, private doubts about whether the world is really heating up, efforts to force dissenting scientists out of the peer-review process, attempts to delegitimize journals that allowed publications by skeptical scientists, and manipulation of IPCC reports.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) was founded in 1988  as a political organization to publish special reports on climate.  They do issue occasional reports, and more importantly issue a summary of each report written by bureaucrats and politicians which is usually the only thing read by governments and the media, for the actual report comes along months later.

Much of the drama in the IPCC reports came from a graph of global temperatures over many centuries by Dr. Michael Mann.  It showed temperatures going along without much variation for hundreds of years and then suddenly shooting up in the late 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick.  Here was cause for real alarm. If temperatures were climbing, so was the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Correlation does not mean causation, but that rule was quickly tossed to the winds, for hated fossil fuels are clearly the greatest source of carbon. Governments wanted to know how bad, and what to do.  Vast amounts of money flowed from governments all over the world to scientists who would establish how humans were causing  the warming.  Scientists in every field were suddenly writing grant proposals.  Career advancement, prestige, money, university distinction.

Canadian researchers got interested in the data behind Dr. Mann’s “hockey-stick” graph.  After all, it eliminated the Medieval Warm Period — a time when the climate was much warmer, when the Vikings farmed in Greenland, wine grapes grew in England and civilization flourished.   They found statistical errors that would have produced a “hockey-stick” graph no matter what data was entered.  The graph was in error.

Then James Hansen, head of the Goddard Center at NASA, was found fudging data in the claim that October of 2008 was the warmest year on record.  Anthony Watts enlisted hundreds of citizen volunteers to photograph the temperature stations around the United States and measure and describe their location.  Situated next to parking lots, air-conditioner exhausts, trash burners, reflective concrete walls, busy streets their location precluded any accurate temperature being recorded.  The surface temperature records were flawed, and recorded temperatures much higher than actuality.

Stephen McIntyre, the aforementioned Canadian researcher, looked into tree-ring data from an examination of tree rings from 12 trees from a Siberian peninsula that seemed to be proof of warming.   When rings from 35 nearby trees were included, temperature anomalies disappeared.  A senior researcher at the EPS’s National Center for Environmental Economics, Alan Carlin, dared to say that “available observable data..invalidate the hypothesis” that humans cause dangerous global warming.  He was silenced.

Viscount Monckton is furious about the content of the leaked CRU emails and says you should be too:

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up.

It is fraud for the EPA to claim that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated.  Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies that have encouraged the global warming fraud.  Christopher Horner, author of Red Hot Lies said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer-funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”

Don’t bet on a quick or easy resolution.  Careers, reputations, money, funding are all involved along with government and media exposure.  Nobody is going to give up easily, and governments are inclined to protect their own.

The most thorough coverage be followed at Climate Depot, and at Anthony Watts website where you can find a video from Dr. Timothy Ball.  Dr, Roy Spencer’s comments can be found on his website.  Climate Depot has constantly updated links to the emails, the documents and comments from all over the world.



Did Hell Freeze Over?
November 22, 2009, 5:49 pm
Filed under: American Elephant, Humor, Politics, Television | Tags: ,

‘Cuz SNL is now openly mocking Obama.

Took them long enough! I guess they felt they could no longer carry his water, now that this president has lost majority support.  Is it just me, or does the audience seem very uncomfortable?

ADDENDUM: The video is no longer available on YouTube. You can view it on SNL’s site here.



Alarming Climate Change? Meteorologists Have Their Doubts!

The October 2009 issue of the “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,” has a new survey that indicates that a significant number of professional meteorologists doubt that manmade sources of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming.  The survey was vetted by an advisory board of climate experts, including representatives from several climate-science organizations as well as the EPA, the Pew Center and many members of the AMS.

  • When asked about the UN’s IPCC statement that “Most of the warming since 1959 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral, and only 24% agreed or strongly agreed.
  • 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with the statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections of a warming of the planet.” Only 19% agreed with the statement.
  • Almost a third agreed or strongly agreed that “global warming is a scam.”
  • When the meteorologists were asked to identify “the greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”

The credibility of theories of global warming and the accompanying alarmism, or any notion that international climate controls are either desirable or possible are fading. The president has admitted that no climate treaty will be signed in Copenhagen this year.  This will mean another fortuitous nail driven into the coffin of proposed U.S. climate legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill in the House or the Kerry-Boxer bill in the Senate.

Every nail is well-deserved.



A Tax-and Spend Bill of the Very Highest Order! Affordable Care Indeed!

It looks as if Harry Reid has the 60 votes he needs to pass his health care bill to the floor.  This is a procedural vote, but an important one, and Republicans may not be able to keep the bill from passing.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has used every trick in the book to get the votes he needs. Scheduling the vote for a Saturday night when all the senators were anxious to be off on their Thanksgiving vacation provides an extra bit of urgency.   Bribes for reluctant Blue Dog Democrats ((moderates) like the $100 million for Louisiana Senator Landrieu’s constituents written into the health care bill show how it is done.

I would dearly love to see a quiz ordered, on the senate floor, to see just what the  senators know about the bill that they are voting for.  I suspect not much.  After all it has only been available for a couple of days, and it is 2074 pages long. No one has had time to read the whole thing, understand it and analyze its consequences.

The gimmicks (cheats) used to get a favorable rating from the Congressional Budget Office are quite amazing.  The “Doc-Fix” is a big one.  They cut the Medicare reimbursements to physicians for their services, and right now the payments to doctors are far under the doctors costs.  What happens when you do not reimburse doctors fairly?  They quit accepting Medicare patients.  (Same thing for Medicaid).  Senators know this, so will pass a separate bill putting back the reimbursements they removed.  Since only the cut is part of the bill, the CBO will find that it cuts costs. (Lie, Cheat, Fraud).

The CBO estimates costs over a ten-year period.  So the taxes and fees commence next year, but the bill doesn’t take full effect until 2014 when the costs begin.  That’s how you make it seem cheaper.  Over 20 years, the true costs will be $4.9 trillion, though every health care bill anywhere, Medicare, Medicaid, the States’ plans have all cost far more than estimated — except for the Medicare Drug Plan.  That came in costing less than the estimates because of the “donut hole” provision which encouraged seniors to make wise choices to keep the cost of their prescriptions down. The Democrats, of course, plan to eliminate the “donut hole.”  There is no end to their folly.

How about this bit:  according to Keith Hennessey, 16 million uninsured Americans  pay a penalty tax.  8 million uninsured illegal aliens will not have to pay a penalty tax.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) have been increasingly popular. In 2006 only about 1% of adults with private insurance had HSAs, by this year it is up to 4%.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members dominate the HSA market, says that enrollees are more likely than those with traditional insurance to be better consumers. They’re more likely to track expenses (63% to 43%), save for the future (47% to 18%), and search for information on physician quality (20% to 14%). They’re also more likely to participate and see results from wellness programs like weight loss, fitness and smoking cessation. This makes intuitive sense: They’ve got skin directly in the game.

David Goldhill, a media executive, recently wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that if a 22-year-old starts at his company today earning $30,000 and health costs grow at 3%, by the time he retires he’ll have paid out $1.77 million in premiums, lower wages, out-of-pocket costs and both sides of the Medicare payroll tax.

If all that money were instead available via an HSA, including by borrowing against future contributions, “wouldn’t you be able to afford your own care?” Mr. Goldhill asks. “And wouldn’t you consume health care differently if you and your family didn’t have to spend that money only on care?”

About 40% of tax-filers with HSAs earn under $60,000 a year.  Naturally the Democrats eliminate Health Savings Accounts.  And of course, the Reid bill subjects all private health insurance (you didn’t think you would escape this, did you?) to detailed Federal regulation.  Those clever bureaucrats (who can’t even read the bills they vote for) know better than you or your doctor what health care you should be allowed to have.

The Republican plan would shrink the deficit by $61 billion at least, without accounting gimmicks. Can’t have that!

ADDENDUM:  The National Federation of Independent Business has come out in full force against the Senate health care bill.  It does not address their number one problem: the unsustainable cost of healthcare.  They oppose it due to the amount of new taxes, the creation of new mandates, and the establishment of new entitlement programs.  The costs far outweigh any benefits that businesses might have reallized.  Why are they speaking up only now?  The bill has just become available — all 2074 pages.



Dan Mitchell Explains the Health Care Train Wreck

The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell does an excellent job of explaining the problems and costs of the health care bills before Congress. The Democrats have wanted government-run health care for so long (why I do not understand) that they are willing to resort to all sorts of subterfuges to accomplish it.They are buying votes, reducing the Congressional Budget Office’s cost estimates by raising taxes for five years before the costs start to kick-in in 2014.

They are planning to force a vote on Saturday night when the Senate wants to leave for their Thanksgiving break in order to add urgency.  (Don’t you wish we got all the vacations Congress gives themselves?) The bill just appeared yesterday and they will have to once again vote without reading or understanding what is in the bill.

We have the best health care system in the world.  Their big ideas do nothing to improve it, but only start breaking it down. Do take the time to listen to Daniel Mitchell, you will be glad you did.



Guess What “Global Warming” Causes This Week!

Obama’s War on FOX News?
November 20, 2009, 2:10 am
Filed under: American Elephant, Democrat Corruption, Politics | Tags: , ,


How Do You Pass a Bill that The Majority of Americans Don’t Want?

If you desperately want to pass a bill nationalizing one-sixth of the economy, destroying the best health-care system in the world, raising the costs of health insurance for everyone in the country, and raising taxes on everything that moves — and you have some reluctant blue dog Democrats that might not go along — what do you do?

In the case of Mary Landrieu (D-LA),and you need her vote,  if you are Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), you add a little section on page 432 of your health care bill to increase Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The bill takes two pages to define which states would qualify, as those stated during the preceding seven fiscal years have been declared a “major disaster area.” All of which manages to apply to just one state — Louisiana, the home of said blue dog reluctant Democrat Mary Landrieu, and presents Louisiana with a Medicaid subsidy of $100 million taxpayer dollars.

That’s how you buy votes.



A Step Backward in the Fight Against Breast Cancer.

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force tossed out long-time guidelines for breast cancer screening, and has caused a well-deserved uproar.  This should alert anyone paying attention as a preview of the coming political decisions about cost-control and medical treatment that are central to ObamaCare.

In 1983, the American Cancer Society began recommending that all women get screened beginning at age 40.  Since 1990 mortality from breast cancer has dropped by about 30 percent, after remaining constant for nearly 50 years.

This week, the task force, which includes neither oncologists nor radiologists, recommended that patients under 50 or over 75 without special risk factors no longer needed mammograms, and other screening techniques aren’t worth the money.

Did something change?  The panel decided to review the data with an eye to health care spending as a core concern.

ObamaCare is “predicated on the assumption that the federal government has the knowledge, capacity, and will to drive greater efficiency in American health care,” noted James Capretta.

The health care bills under consideration would hand over to the federal government nearly all power for organizing American health care.  And there is not a shred of evidence that Congress or the administration can handle these tasks well.  Indeed, there is abundant evidence that, in a crunch to control costs, politicians will do what they always do, which is impose across-the-board payment-rate cuts.  …It’s cuts for all providers, no matter how well or badly they treat patients.

The task force admitted that the benefits of early detection are the same for all women, but there are fewer cases of breast cancer in younger women.  So you get into statistical abstractions about how many screenings it takes to save one life, and how many false positives there are in each age group.

At the bureaucracy level, this sort of recommendation is usually adopted by Medicare when it makes coverage decisions for seniors, and Medicare’s decisions usually influence the private insurance market.

The American Cancer Society objects.  They acknowledged the limitations to mammography, but said the task force underestimates its lifesaving value.  You can’t treat a tumor until you find it, and mammography has led to finding tumors when they are smaller and more treatable.

Today, the task force from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force hastily said — We didn’t mean— we’re not telling your doctor what to do — not issuing rules.  So that is where it stands, with more to come.

What it does is provide an example of political decisions by bureaucrats looking at statistical abstractions and numbers and deciding what treatment your doctor may order for you and your loved ones.