Pontificus | Pondering the past, present and future…

TAG | Hoax

James Taylor of Forbes has reported on new NASA data in an article titled “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism1. Basically it shows that all the climate models put forth by global warming (aka climate change) alarmists are faulty. For those inclined to read the underlying scientific paper titled “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance“, it is available from the peer reviewed journal Remote Sensing2.

Time for a new theory, or in this case fairy tale, Church of Man Made Global Warming folks. I bet Prince Charles feels pretty stupid right now, or should anyway. And algoracle still laughs all the way to the bank. There sure are plenty of suckers out there.

© 2011, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , , , , Hide

Investor’s Business Daily1 has listed 20 examples of how ObamaCare will take away freedom of choice for Americans.

A shortened version:

1. It will cost $750 annually to go without health insurance, even if you are young and healthy. (Section 1501)

2. You won’t be able to get health insurance premiums that reflect your (presumably good) lifestyle. (Section 2701).

3. You won’t be able to bargain for lower health insurance costs by agreeing to certain coverage limits. (Section 2711).

4. You won’t be able to save by choosing a policy that doesn’t cover some preventive care. (Section 2712).

5. You won’t be able to offer cheaper insurance to employees by limiting the definition of “children” to something less than 26 years of age. (Section 2714).

6. “You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.” Regardless of if you need such services or not. (Section 1302).

7. Trying to balance cost of the plan with what percentage the plan covers is limited. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You can’t offer (or buy) policies with higher deductibles than $2,000/$4,000 in exchange for a lower premium. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. It will cost an employer with more than 101 employees $750 (or $2,000 to $3,000, depending on what comes out of the closed door meetings) not to offer insurance. (Section 1513).

10. You can’t place more than $2,500 into a Flexible Health Spending Account. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. Physicians will be pressured into limiting the services they use through government monitoring. (Section 3003 (i))

12. A physician won’t be able to own a hospital. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. A current physician owner of a hospital won’t be able to expand the hospital, except in limited circumstances, and even then the expansion is very limited. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B), Section 6601 (i) (3) (E) and Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. The government will control premium increases. (Section 1003)

15. The government will take $2.3 billion or more every year from the pharmaceutical industry. (Section 1404, and Section 9008 (b))

16. The government will take $2 billion or more every year from medical device makers. (Section 9009 (b), and Section 1405).

17. The government will take $6.7 billion or more every year from insurance companies. (Section 1406, and Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B))

18. Insurance companies will be limited in what kind of talent they can hire as CEOs, as deferred compensation is limited to $500,000. (Section 9014).

19. You will face a marriage penalty in that you will pay an additional 0.5% tax, or perhaps as much as 3.8%, on income over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. (Section 9015, and Section 1402)

20. Cosmetic surgery, or whatever is defined as such by the government, has a 5% tax on it. (Section 9017).

We won’t even begin with the many Constitutional problems this bill poses. Hope and change, Komrade.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , , , Hide

Netherlands
(dark green below sealevel)

As if the IPCC doesn’t have enough egg on its face from basing predictions on manipulated weather data and just lying about the future of glaciers in the Himalayas.

Now it’s becoming ever more obvious that nothing the panel has stated can be relied on. This inevitable conclusion is derived from the IPCC not even getting basic geographical data points right, as it has now surfaced that the IPCC claims that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level, when in fact only about 26% does.1

The Indians have clearly had enough of the IPCC circus, and has effectively quit by creating it’s own climate change monitoring body. Reportedly this was because the country can’t rely on what the UN IPCC produces.2 This is particularly embarrassing for the head of the IPCC, Dr R.K Pachauri, who is from India.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , , , Hide

Jan/10

17

IPCC Spreading More Misinformation

It seems that the IPCC has more egg on its face for the “scientific” conclusions that it claims to present in the name of all “scientists” in the world.

This one is about the IPCC statement as to a 90% probability that the Himalayan glaciers will be reduced by 80% or entirely gone by the year 2035.1

Now it turns out that the IPCC was basing its “scientific conclusion” on no research what so ever. Instead, the IPCC quoted an opinion piece, that itself quoted another opinion piece, finally tracking back to an interview about a decade ago.

More details can be obtained from a very good article describing how incredibly bad and inaccurate these IPCC conclusions are.2

If IPCC maintains the same standards in the future, we can expect the next report to include a weather prediction by the chairman’s wife’s third aunt’s best friend, published as a scientific consensus with a 90% probability.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , Hide

I Want To Believe

I Want To Believe

It seems that the “warmers” at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) (University of East Anglia, UEA) aren’t the only ones manipulating climate data to match models and predictions.

Now the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) in Moscow claims that the Hadley Center for Climate Change (Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature, HadCRUT), based at the British Meteorological Office in Exeter, has tampered with Russian climate data.12

The short version is that HadCRUT includes only a small portion of Russian climate data; specifically only those parts that showed measurements to Hadley’s liking. According to Russian analysts, only 25% of stations were actually used. The measurements that were left out showed no substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

(more…)

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , Hide

Oops

Oops

The European Foundation1 has released a list of 100 reasons why climate change (formerly known as global warming) is natural and not man-made2:
(more…)

  1. It’s unclear exactly what organization this is, and the source article did not provide a link to it, though the paper describes the Foundation as “respected”
  2. As reported by Daily Express

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , , Hide

What would one expect from someone with a lot to hide? First ignoring the question, then trying to stop the questioner, and finally calling security.1 See for yourself.

Armed Response to 'Climategate' question

This person calling himself a “professor” is from Stanford University.

© 2009 – 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , Hide

Dec/09

5

Musical Moment…

Imagine There's No Global Warming

Speaks for itself…

© 2009 – 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , Hide

Head in the Sand

Head in the Sand

It has now been 14 days since the ClimateGate matter broke, and major news networks have yet to cover the topic. According to Media Research Center1 ABC, CBS and NBC have yet to mention ClimateGate. Perhaps this is all one needs to know about the “quality” of “news” from these networks.

Perhaps it’s not just that the news networks haven’t heard about ClimateGate from a “reliable” source — such as Gibbsy2 at the White House briefing room — ignoring the stepping down of the head of the Climatic Research Unit3 and the UN calling for an investigation4.

Or it could also be that the topic isn’t important enough. What, with the Democratic Congress giving away trillion dollar handouts from healthcare to the umptieth bailout of a union driven industry, they might rightfully be under the impression that legislation based on made up data and inconsistent models is quite ordinary, and therefore not newsworthy.

Or maybe these “news” outlets just want to stay away from commenting on the cap and tax trading scheme voted to the Senate by Pelosi’s House of Representatives, because the trading scheme apparently was originally invented by Ken Lay of Enron fame5.

Regardless of the reasons behind it, actions speak louder than words. It would be a good idea for everyone to remember this failure by ABC, CBS and NBC next time when one turns to television for “news”.

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , Hide

Trussst in me...

Tru$$$t in me...

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) seems to have destroyed raw weather data that it gathered, only holding onto “value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data“.1

Now isn’t that convenient? The same people who manipulated their data to make their models show results they wanted to see are now effectively asking everyone to trust them on the processing of raw measurements into “value-added data”.

(more…)

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

, , , , , , , , Hide

Older posts >>