Friday, November 20, 2009

Hadley Hacked "In the interest of Science"!!!!!!!!

Hadley hacked: warmist conspiracy exposed?

Andrew Bolt is on the case:

Hackers have broken into the data base of the Hadley GRU unit - one of the world’s leading alarmist centres - and put the files they stole on the Internet, on the grounds that the science is too important to be kept under wraps.


So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

F-ing Bombshell!!!!!!!!!!


Some good links can be found here:

environmentalists exposed as liars

Planet Gore: The Blue-Dress Moment May Have Arrived

If legit, this apparently devastating series of revelations will be very hard for the media to ignore. I didn't say impossible — they're fully vested partners in the global warming industry, because catastrophism sells. But so does scandal, and this appears to be the makings of a very big one. Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research. Then reflect that the taxpayer spends more on climate-related research than on the entire suite of AIDS programs, far beyond drug research.

This is a scandal that will rock the scientific world. Watch out baby, bombs below!

I celebrate the hackers! I drink in their honor!


. Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Health Care Numbers

Obama has said that we have 30 million uninsured in this country.

"There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

"These are the facts. Nobody disputes them."

That was in his September address to Congress. Those "were the facts", and "nobody disputes them". Nobody accept Obama in August:

“I don't have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today,” Obama said in his remarks at the beginning of the town hall meeting. “In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our ,fellow citizens have no coverage. They are just vulnerable.”

Nice to have all the facts! Especially when they seem to change from speech to speech.

The population of the United States is 308 million.

From Obama's speech:

"In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point."

Given our population, that would be close to 103,000,000 that go without health care coverage at some point over two years. That is a large number. I would like to see the statistics behind it.

From the Washington Post:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid presented an $848 billion health-care overhaul package on Wednesday that would extend coverage to 31 million Americans and reform insurance."

I am struck by the fact that out of the 30 million uninsured, Harry Reid will insure 31 million of them. His bill would cover 103% of the uninsured. Now that is what I call effective government.

"The bill would cover an additional 31 million people over the next decade. That would boost the percentage of nonelderly Americans with medical insurance from 83% to 94% over the next decade -- slightly less than the 96% who would be covered by the House bill."

It is obvious that Harry Reid isn't using the 30 million uninsured number that Obama rolled out before Congress and the American people. He is using the old 46 million uninsured number. Why do these people keep switching around the numbers?

Here is the source of the 46 million uninsured number:

In fact, the latest available government statistics on the number of uninsured in America comes from the Census Bureau’s “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,” which is published every August. (The Census Bureau report that will estimate the number of uninsured in 2008 will be released later this month.)

The current report says that there were 35.920 million uninsured U.S. citizens and 9.737 million uninsured foreign nationals in the United States.

Table 6 on page 22 of the report says that in 2007 there were a total of 45.657 million uninsured people residing in the United States. The table provides a breakout on the demographics of these 45.657 uninsured, indicating that it includes 33.269 million native born citizens and 2.651 million naturalized citizens, for a total of 35.920 U.S. citizens who are uninsured.

The report also states there were also 9.737 million persons in the United States in 2007 who were “not a citizen” and who did not have health insurance.

The Senate plan by Harry Reid is going to cost 848 billion. And by their own admission, it is also going to leave 16 to 17 million people still uninsured.

From the LA Times:

"The bill would cover an additional 31 million people over the next decade. That would boost the percentage of nonelderly Americans with medical insurance from 83% to 94% over the next decade -- slightly less than the 96% who would be covered by the House bill."

If the 11% increase represents 31,000,000 people, the 6% left off represent almost 17,000,000 people by my math. Of course, that would leave us with 48 million uninsured, which is a new high. So maybe those pecentages have some rounding errors. Maybe the numbers are just fudged anyway.

I think all the numbers are bogus, but they do matter because they are used to push the government takeover.

Here is a breakdown of the uninsured by Keith Hennessey:

Also from Hennessey:

Let us walk through the graph from top to bottom.

There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.

  • Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.

  • Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.

  • Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.

  • Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.

  • The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:

  • U.S. citizens;

  • with income below 300% of poverty;

  • not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;

  • and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

Look at the breakdown above. Ask yourself the question, who will the 16-17 million uninsured be after this bill? And who does the bill actually insure?

You have 10.7 million who are already covered. Some are the Medicare undercount who don't realize that Medicare/Medicade already covers them. Some are people that are eligible but haven't signed up for the programs. It is easy to take credit for insuring these people, they already have the saftey net.

You have 10.1 million people that already live above 300% of the poverty line. Those people can afford to buy insurance and they will be forced to buy it under the new plan.

So in two easy steps it is easy to get to 20.8 million people. Surely all of those people will be "covered" in the new plan. They are the low hanging fruit.

Think about that. That is over 2/3rds of Harry Reid's 31 million people. He is going to insure 10.7 people that already have insurance. The cost to insure the already insured should be zero. Then he will mandate and force 10.1 million people that can afford it to buy insurance. The cost to force other people to buy insurance should be zero. That means he is only going to really pay to insure 10 million people, and he will be paying 848 billion dollars to do it. That comes in at $85,000 per head.

Is that what it comes down too? We are going to force 10.1 million people to buy overpriced insurance they don't want to buy. We are going to pay dearly to cover another 10 million people, while still leaving 16 million people uninsured. It seems like a really bad plan that won't really satisfy anyone. But at least it will cost a lot of money. Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Terrorists on Trial

I can't help but thinking that the liberals in power want a conservative federal Judge to preside over the terrorist hearings. The last thing they want is a liberal activist judge. Think about that.

They don't want one of their own kind that they like to appoint because of the damage that could be done.

Liberals want KSM to hang as much as we do, they just want it done in the nice and neat US Justice System. If they get an activist Judge that they appointed, he could throw out the whole of the evidence based upon tourture.

The last thing they want is these guys to walk. It would be a disaster for America.

Thinking through that vein, it could be a constitutional crisis. Imagine if they threw out the case against KSM. Many people would not be able to accept KSM, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks going free. They would take action. It could be bloody. The liberals seem to think the death penalty or life in jail is a lock. I don't share their optimism. Anything can happen in our legal system, and I don't like taking things to chance.

They say they roll judges, but I doubt they will roll this one at random. I bet 10-1 that a conservative judge gets this case because that is what we all need. This should not be a trial on torture or the Bush White House. It needs to be a trail of terrorists that killed thousands of people.

If done poorly, this could be the dry powder keg that could explode. You simply can't let these people go for any reason. Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Afghanistan is a Cesspool of Humanity

One more reason to leave the place for good...

How the US Funds the Taliban

From Aram Rosten at The Nation:

In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars--consists of payments to insurgents.

In order to fight the Taliban, first we need to pay the Taliban. WTF?!?!?!

I wonder where those Taliban get funding to kill Americans? Maybe from tax paying Americans? WTF!

The bizarre fact is that the practice of buying the Taliban's protection is not a secret. I asked Col. David Haight, who commands the Third Brigade of the Tenth Mountain Division, about it. After all, part of Highway 1 runs through his area of operations. What did he think about security companies paying off insurgents? "The American soldier in me is repulsed by it," he said in an interview in his office at FOB Shank in Logar Province. "But I know that it is what it is: essentially paying the enemy, saying, 'Hey, don't hassle me.' I don't like it, but it is what it is."

As a military official in Kabul explained contracting in Afghanistan overall, "We understand that across the board 10 percent to 20 percent goes to the insurgents. My intel guy would say it is closer to 10 percent. Generally it is happening in logistics."

In a statement to The Nation about Host Nation Trucking, Col. Wayne Shanks, the chief public affairs officer for the international forces in Afghanistan, said that military officials are "aware of allegations that procurement funds may find their way into the hands of insurgent groups, but we do not directly support or condone this activity, if it is occurring." He added that, despite oversight, "the relationships between contractors and their subcontractors, as well as between subcontractors and others in their operational communities, are not entirely transparent."

In any case, the main issue is not that the US military is turning a blind eye to the problem. Many officials acknowledge what is going on while also expressing a deep disquiet about the situation. The trouble is that--as with so much in Afghanistan--the United States doesn't seem to know how to fix it.

No doubt why the military invented the term "SNAFU" - "Situation Normal All F@#ked Up". I can tell you one way to fix the problem though, leave that place for the stone age.

I am quite convinced we have no idea what we are doing or why we are really even fighting. The President doesn't seem to know either. If Obama decides to bail out he has my full support. It will be tougher for him than me. He has spent the last couple of years describing Afghanistan as the "Right War". I thought it was a bad idea all along.

And if we are to stay, we should force them to legalize the drug trade and buy up all the poppy production and make it into morphine. We need to stop the black market that helps fund the Taliban. And we need to stop paying the Taliban for security services. I guess that would be a starting point.

It is madness. I wish we would leave now. Leave in 5 or 10 years I doubt it makes much difference in that cesspool of humanity. That place was meant for the stone age. Leave now and let them on their way. Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 2, 2009

Some links

Some links to stuff I want to remember.

First some polls

Center Right Nation

Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological GroupCompared with 2008, more Americans “conservative” in general, and on issues.

Another poll of interest is about how Mexican nationals see the immigration issue:

Public Opinion in Mexico on U.S. Immigration: Zogby Poll Examines Attitudes

Among the findings:

A clear majority of people in Mexico, 56 percent, thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Just 17 percent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go illegally. The rest were unsure or thought it would make no difference.

Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States, 65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.

Two-thirds of Mexicans know someone living in the United States; one-third said an immediate member of their household was living in the United States.

Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.

A new Pew Research Center poll also found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could.

An overwhelming majority (69 percent) of people in Mexico thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States. The rest were unsure.

Also, 69 percent of people in Mexico felt that the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) in the United States.

And check out this piece from the LA Times:

The Golden State isn't worth it

The smackdown of California big government is a must read. Sphere: Related Content